Preamble

The House met at half past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON UNDERGROUND (SAFETY MEASURES) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time on Wednesday 24 July.

KING'S CROSS RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Wednesday 24 July.

EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [13 May], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Debate further adjourned till Wednesday 24 July.

KING'S CROSS RAILWAYS BILL

Motion made,
That the Promoters of the King's Cross Railways Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall he presented to the House;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

EC Food Directives

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which traditional British foods are affected by EC directives.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): I have always argued very firmly in Brussels against burdening the food industry with unnecessary bureaucratic rules.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Will my hon. Friend resist any further regulations from the Community that might interfere with the traditional names of favourite English foods? May we have an assurance that well-known English foods, using their generic names, such as Cheddar cheese, York ham or Devon or Cornish cream will not be brought within the regulations and that he will resist any attempt to change those names? Will he also defend the British kipper from any suggestion that the wisest cure constitutes a health risk?

Mr. Curry: The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question is that at the meeting of the Agriculture Council in Luxembourg last month, when I represented the United Kingdom, I gave a considerable peroration on precisely that subject. It is wholly unnecessary and perfectly silly that generic names should be included in any bureaucratic regulations. There are a very limited number of cases in which that sort of special protection could be afforded any sort of justice. We shall certainly resist that.
As for the kipper, I share my hon. Friend's predilection for that delicacy. I see no reason why any food should be interfered with, other than on health grounds, and there are no health grounds whatever to get in the way of the good old British kipper.

Mr. Pike: Does the Minister agree that it is daft that we should be spending so much time in Europe discussing, for example whether an Eccles cake has to come from Eccles? Does he further agree that it would be damaging if the directive were approved in its present form because it would restrict innovation and prevent the trade in, and export of, good British food? We should be making sure that consumers get what they want and at a good quality and that we are able to export good quality British food.

Mr. Curry: Precisely.

Mr. Cormack: Was my hon. Friend's peroration successful? If not, will he repeat it until it is?

Mr. Curry: The line-up comprises six states that prefer the original proposals and six states that support the alternatives that the United Kingdom has put forward. At present, it is a case of an irresistible force meeting an immovable object—we are part of the immovable object and we intend not to be moved on the subject.

Animal Welfare

Mr. David Evans: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to improve standards of animal welfare in the EC.

Mr. Burns: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to improve standards of animal welfare in the EC.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Maclean): We are pressing for the adoption of comprehensive Community rules setting high welfare standards for animals on farms, during transport, and at slaughter. In particular, we are seeking to have the United Kingdom's high welfare standards adopted on a Communitywide basis.

Mr. Evans: I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he assure me that animals with a militant tendency or left-wing views or which do not pay their community charge—[Interruption.]—will not receive any protection? Will he also give an assurance that the Government and our European partners will give adequate protection to the Leader of the Opposition—[Interruption.]—so that he does not end up before the election, as he will after it, in the knacker's yard?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is well wide of animal welfare.

Mr. Maclean: I suspect that many animals would not behave like some Opposition Members.

Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister accept that his words and those of his right hon. Friend offering substantial support for the cause of animal welfare in Europe enjoy substantial public support? However, does he also accept that there is now significant doubt about whether the principle expressed in those words will be matched by action in the Community, especially in view of the fate of a motion to protect the smaller cetaceans, on which the Ministry does not appear to have acted accordingly to the Secretary of State's words.

Mr. Maclean: I entirely reject the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was able to secure substantial protection for whales. He also managed to keep the motion to protect small cetaceans on the agenda of the international whaling conference. The British Government will stand by everything that we have said about the protection of animals. We are arguing strenuously in Europe for that and it would help very much if the Opposition would support us rather than carping in the House and trying to undermine our position at every opportunity.

Mr. Burns: I am sure that your failure to call me earlier was not personal, Mr. Speaker, although it has happened twice in the past few months.

Mr. Speaker: It was not personal.

Mr. Burns: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the action that his Department took last year to stop the use of crates for the production of veal and I urge him to use all his influence to prevent that obnoxious practice in the rest of Europe. In

the meantime, will he urge all consumers of veal in Britain to boycott mainland continental veal until that reprehensible system is ended?

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend makes a good point and highlights the difficulty of Britain taking unilateral action, as we rightly did last year, to ban veal crates because we believe that they are cruel. The net result has been that most veal eaten in this country is now imported—and produced under the very system that we outlawed in Britain. That is why we are arguing strenuously to have our high welfare standards on veal incorporated throughout the European Community. I strongly support the campaign of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to draw to British consumers' attention the fact that very little veal in this country is produced under humane systems and that if they want humanely produced veal they must seek it out in the shops, where they will find that humanely produced veal is nearly all British.

Mr. Tony Banks: I entirely endorse what the Minister says and I am glad that he is prepared to endorse the RSPCA's campaign, but how can consumers know that they are buying humanely produced veal unless the supermarkets and butcher shops tell them? I think that people should avoid veal altogether, because they cannot know whether the veal cattle have been exported from this country and kept in the crates that the Government have banned here—a ban supported by the Labour party.

Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman raises an intriguing point. We can have a proper solution to this, and consumers will have the right to know exactly what they are eating, only when we have a Europewide solution and proper marking. We must also not forget that shops and supermarkets are the only places where consumers would know where the veal was produced, because some supermarkets are marking their veal as humanely produced in Britain or are selling small quantities of imported humanely produced veal. The problem lies in restaurants and cafeterias, some of which are not far from this Chamber, where veal may be on the menu, but we have not a clue where it has come from nor how it has been produced.

Sir Peter Emery: Will my hon. Friend tell the House exactly what measures he will be able to take concerning the export of live horses other than for breeding, as the practice of exporting horses purely for slaughter is obnoxious and unnecessary?

Mr. Maclean: We shall continue with the action that we have been taking since that issue first came on the agenda. We believe that the minimum values rules operated in this country are an excellent means of protecting horses. We do not want to have to resume the export of live horses and ponies. We shall continue to resist that strenuously and argue to that effect in Europe. Our policy will not change.

Dr. David Clark: Has the Minister seen the report by scientists commissioned by Greenpeace into French drift nets being used in the same fishery as our Cornish fishermen went to earlier this week? Is he aware that the scientists monitored three common dolphins and two striped dolphins that had been caught in the unacceptably


long drift nets? The Minister knows that the suffering of dolphins and porpoises is completely unacceptable to the British people, so what does he intend to do about it?

Mr. Maclean: Of course we are concerned about allegations from Greenpeace or anyone else of dolphins being caught in drift nets. I understand that as of this afternoon, in the first three days of fishing no dolphins have been caught. We shall monitor the position carefully, and we must find a Europeanwide solution to the problem. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence, he should bring it before us.

Meadow and Pasture Land

Ms. Quin: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his Department's policy towards traditional meadow and pasture land.

Mr. Curry: The environmentally sensitive areas scheme provides protection and enhancement of meadow and pasture land. We are consulting on how to strengthen that programme.

Ms. Quin: Has the Minister read the recent report of the Royal Society for Nature Conservation which gives details about the alarming loss of traditional meadows and pasture land, with their wealth of wild flowers? Will he discuss the report's recommendations with its authors? Will he give a guarantee that those meadows and traditional pastures outside the areas of protected status will be retained for the future?

Mr. Curry: I have read the report and note that it is supportive of the environmentally sensitive area principle. The hon. Lady will know that, as part of the environmentally sensitive area consultations, we are talking about the creation of new meadow land. She will also know that, in the countryside premium under the set-aside scheme, there is specific provision for the creation of grass land and meadow land, and in the new countryside stewardship scheme there are at least two or three categories that are eligible for aid and which affect grassland—for example, limestone in river bottoms. We are extremely concerned to maintain those traditional grass lands. The thrust of our policy is to enhance the environment. We shall certainly be in contact with the authors of the report to see whether they have any suggestions, as, clearly, we are pushing in the same direction and have exactly the same preoccupations.

Sir Dudley Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Warwickshire nature conservation trust has taken 50 acres of excellent pasture land and meadows into its care to look after it for the community and is also seeking further tracts of land? Does he agree that that example should be copied by other counties up and down the country?

Mr. Curry: It is an example which should be copied by all organisations in a position to take action. There is widespread concern to ensure that the traditional countryside is preserved. That does not have to be to the detriment of effective and efficient agriculture—the two are perfectly compatible and there is no reason why we cannot pursue them in harness.

CAP

Mr. Moss: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what he next expects to discuss in the EC Agricultural Council proposals for reform of the common agricultural policy.

Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the latest developments in negotiations over the common agricultural policy.

Mr. Evennett: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning the latest proposals for the reform of the common agricultural policy from the European Commission.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Gummer): I expect the next discussion in the Agriculture Council to take place on 23 and 24 September. I will then place on record again our opposition to those parts of the MacSharry plan that discriminate against British agriculture, northern agriculture, specialist agriculture, efficient agriculture, the interests of the consumer, European agricultural ability to compete with the rest of the world, and use the reform not to reform agriculture itself, but to put forward Mr. MacSharry's personal views.

Mr. Moss: When my right hon. Friend next meets Mr. MacSharry, will he extend an invitation to him to meet my fen arable farmers in north-east Cambridgeshire—preferably under tight security—to explain to them the Irish logic of his proposals? His suggestions mean that they will be expected to take a cut of 35 per cent. for their cereal prices without any compensation, whereas small farmers in Ireland, Greece, Germany and France will be adequately compensated. Does my right hon. Friend agree that those are the economics of the madhouse and that the livelihoods of my constituents would be decimated to protect the incomes of less efficient farmers in Europe?

Mr. Gummer: Clearly, those proposals are not acceptable, because they discriminate against successful farmers in the United Kingdom and in other countries. The proposals were best summed up in the editorial in The Sun, which stated that the scheme, which was designed to control costs in the future, involved spending an extra £4 billion now. The Sun comments:
More savings like that and we are all ruined.

Mr. David Nicholson: My right hon. Friend deserves congratulations and encouragement on maintaining his resistence to proposals which, by imposing an upper limit of 90 head for the beef and suckler cow premium and 750 head in the less-favoured areas for the ewe premium, will greatly damage farmers in my constituency, in Somerset and in the rest of the south-west. When will the European Community start trying to raise the standards in France, Germany and the Mediterranean countries to the standards of efficiency and structure which prevail in Britain, rather than penalising British farmers?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is quite right to point out that the plans before us would uniquely discriminate against those producing sheepmeat in the United Kingdom. They would be particularly damaging to farmers in Wales, Scotland and the Lake district. No group of farmers deserve discrimination, but that group of


farmers is particularly vulnerable. We have sought to help it through special measures, but it is now suggested that that group should be uniquely discriminated against. That must not happen.

Mr. Evennett: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those ridiculous proposals would mean an increase of nearly 20 per cent. to the taxpayer and would do very little to affect the price of bread to our constituents? My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) has spoken about the 35 per cent. cut in the cereal price. If that became operational, would it be followed by a 35 per cent. reduction in the price of bread to my constituents in Erith and Crayford?

Mr. Gummer: The standard loaf, at a price of 65p, uses wheat worth 8·5p—that is the payment to the farmer. If the cost of the standard loaf were cut by 10 per cent.—one newspaper has suggested that that would be the result of the proposals—the payment to the farmer would have to be reduced to 2p, which is clearly impossible. It has been suggested that the MacSharry package would be helpful to the consumer, but that is not so. All the evidence is that the discrimination would result in higher rather than lower prices.

Mr. William Ross: Is the Minister aware that in his initial response he said no so often, so firmly and with such good reason that I thought that he had joined the Unionist party? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the term "extensive" farming is simply another name for low-level, inefficient production, which would fly in the face of all that we have done in this country for many years? Does he also agree that one does not make the less efficient viable by crucifying the efficient? In the GATT negotiations, will he bear it in mind that we cannot open our doors to all the surpluses of the world, which would destroy all that we have laboured for in this country for so many years? Those who have food surpluses should have a duty to world agriculture.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman will not lead me down the dangerous path of discussing internal Unionist politics. I am one of those who wish that the Unionist party would sometimes say something other than no.
We in the European Community have proposed in the GATT round a proposition that would be extremely difficult for our farmers to bear, but which would be bearable at the pace at which we have put it forward. I believe that other countries should recognise what a very important offer we have made. I do not believe that it is possible for the European Community to move far from that proposition, because it would then not be possible to bear. Our farmers deserve that other countries should recognise what is on offer and take it. We need a GATT agreement if we are to obtain the extra world trade that we all seek—that is, an agreement that can be borne by those who produce the food and look after the land.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the Minister accept that his answer to the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) ought to be widely welcomed by all the farming unions in Wales? Will he confirm that he regards Welsh sheep farmers, whom he helpfully mentioned a few moments ago, as a specialist sector particularly worthy of support? Does he agree that one aspect that ought to receive attention is the establishment

of European Community standard abattoirs available to specialist sheep farmers in Wales to enable them to sell their dead produce abroad?

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree with me that it will be much easier to achieve movement on abattoirs and European standards now that, at long last, we have got the standards. We have been very much held up by the length of the negotiations. We hope now to move as soon as possible on that front.
Newspaper reports that suggest that there are those who think that Welsh farmers would benefit from Mr. MacSharry's proposals, must be based on very slim knowledge of what those proposals mean. The report to which some newspapers have referred says precisely the opposite. It points out that under the present headage limits, Welsh farmers would suffer very considerably, particularly those in central Wales.

Dr. David Clark: May I assure the Minister that the Labour party shares the view that the MacSharry proposals, including the proposal to increase the cost of the common agricultural policy, will be unacceptable to the British people? Does he appreciate that although it is all very well for him to get excited and tell us what he is against, the House has a right to ask what he is in favour of? Does he not think that he would be taken more seriously by the farmers and taxpayers of Britain if he tabled his own counter-proposals and built on the environmental proposals in the MacSharry plan? If he did that, he would begin to determine the scope of the debate instead of allowing other people to dominate it.

Mr. Gummer: I know that it is difficult for the hon. Gentleman, who is a long-time supporter of the Common Market safeguards committee and who hates the European Community, to come to the House and admit publicly that he does not understand how the European Community works. There is no way in which counter-proposals may be tabled.
My views have been made perfectly clear. The five basic points of reform that we want have been repeated time and again, both here and in the Agriculture Council, and they are gaining considerable support from my fellow Ministers of Agriculture. The one thing that this House has learnt over many months is that the Opposition spokesman on agriculture knows so little about the European Community that he finds it difficult to give advice to anyone.

Mr. Lord: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that a 35 per cent. reduction in support for cereal farmers is ludicrous and would be absolutely disastrous for them? Are not the negotiations on agriculture becoming a war of attrition and resulting in lower profits for our farmers? May I urge my right hon. Friend to come up with radical new proposals for reforming the common agricultural policy so that our farmers can see that they have a future in agriculture, instead of having to engage in a continuing battle against what seems to be a continuing decline?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend must surely agree that it would be acceptable, particularly within the context of GATT, to reduce direct price support, so long as we are able to help farmers by means of more direct and money-saving ways at the same time. What is objectionable about the MacSharry proposal is that about 90 per cent. of farmers would not have the reduction. The


reduction would therefore be borne, not only as to their own percentage but to cover that which ought to be carried by others, by the 10 per cent. who remain. What is wrong with the proposal is that the compensation goes to some but not to others and that the cut is borne largely by efficient farmers, many of whom are in the United Kingdom.

Milk Marketing Board

Mr. Strang: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy towards the milk marketing board; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gummer: I welcome the milk marketing board's decision to submit plans for transforming itself to co-operative status.

Mr. Strang: Does the Minister recognise that many of us dispute the view that the abandonment of the current milk marketing scheme would be in the overall interest of milk producers? Does he deny that for farms that are relatively remote from major population centres, any curtailment of the guarantees currently provided by the milk marketing board could be catastrophic?

Mr. Gummer: The milk marketing board proposes that it should make some changes, because it recognises the major problem—the hon. Gentleman must come to terms with it—that more than 35 per cent. of the liquid milk now bought is legally outside the scheme and that supermarkets, which are major selling agencies, can buy their milk from countries that are, naturally, outside the scheme. The milk marketing board is trying to produce a package that will better protect the producer and meet the needs of the consumer. If the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) is opposed to the change and does not agree that the milk marketing board should seek what it believes to be the best answer, he is proposing a scheme in which he feels that he knows better than the board. I am not prepared to say that.

Mr. Conway: My right hon. Friend will know that the majority of Shropshire dairy farmers support the need for change and the view of the milk marketing board. Has my right hon. Friend read the letter in Farming News from the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark)? Is not it surprising that he is taking a more stick-in-the-mud attitude which will not help dairy farmers improve their incomes or businesses?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend may have seen that the shadow Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food wrote in The House Magazine that he did not think that there should be changes in the milk marketing scheme. He, too, thinks that he knows better than the milk marketing board. I warn him directly that if the British people find that the milk marketing scheme falls about the ears of the producers because changes were not made in time, they will know who to blame for the disaster that would befall our milk producers. The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) may laugh, but it is he who said that changes in the market should not be met by changes in the milk marketing scheme.

Mr. Skinner: Does the Minister agree that there is little that the milk marketing board can do for the two dairy farmers in Bolsover who have had to cease production

because of the dioxin levels in the milk in that area? Will he guarantee that while he is arguing for the polluter to pay—we all accept that—somebody should compensate those farmers in the meantime if Coalite or any other polluter takes the matter to court? I suggest that some compensation should be paid and account should be taken of the 25 other farms that may be affected in the future.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman rightly brings to the attention of the House the plight of two dairy farmers, both of whom I have met on their farms. I know very well how seriously they are affected. I asked the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) whether I could visit those farmers since they are in his constituency and he kindly allowed me to do so.
The most important thing is that we are discussing with those farmers ways in which we can experiment on their farms to try to find the source of the pollution. During that time we shall be paying them for the facilities that they will provide and for the fact that they are keeping their animals for us and enabling us to do that research. The research will take about two or three months and, during that time, I hope that we shall be able to understand more closely how to proceed. The hon. Member for Bolsover has been kind enough to accept that this is a complex matter of fault and that we shall have to search for a long time before we find an answer. In the meantime, we shall be helping the farmers as far as we can.

Confectionery Industry

Mr. Gregory: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to make an official visit to York to discuss current confectionery industry issues.

Mr. Curry: I am always ready to discuss confectionery issues in York and elsewhere.

Mr. Gregory: Is my hon. Friend aware of the great concern in the city of York among the 6,500 employees in the confectionery industry about the problem of counterfeiting? While British products such as KitKat have become kit kit and kit kier, those jobs are at risk. Will he talk to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to ensure that there are adequate safeguards for good British products and that appropriate action is taken, especially in the middle east and the far east?

Mr. Curry: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern about shady snacks in the souks, if I may put it like that. He will know that the protection of intellectual property which covers precisely that issue is an important element of the GATT talks. I shall certainly undertake to point out to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry the importance of the problem for the industry, which I know is important in my hon. Friend's constituency. I shall certainly do all that I can to prevent such a theft of jobs from the United Kingdom and from Yorkshire, to which I am particularly attached.

Fishing Industry

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received from representatives of the fishing industry on the question of a decommissioning scheme.

Mr. Curry: I have made it clear that any decommissioning scheme must be part of an effective package of measures to conserve fish stocks and control fishery effort.

Mrs. Ewing: Does the Minister accept in principle the need for a decommissioning scheme? If so, is he prepared to sit down with representatives of the Scottish fishing industry and, instead of passing the buck directly to them, discuss in detail the relative contributions that will be made by the Government, the European Community and the industry to a conservation package which would have the confidence of the industry, rather than the present arrangement of the eight-day tie-up, which puts lives and livelihoods at risk?

Mr. Curry: We are always ready to sit down with the representatives of all United Kingdom industries, as we have demonstrated frequently in the past. We shall continue to do so.

Mr. Harris: Although I recognise the difficulties and pitfalls of a decommissioning scheme, will my hon. Friend nevertheless accept that the overwhelming desire of all hon. Members who represent fishing constituencies is that the Government should consider seriously the possibility of just such a scheme? Will my hon. Friend consider with great care the proposals put to the Government by the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, because many of us believe that at least the outline of such a package is contained in that scheme?

Mr. Curry: Decommissioning as the sole response to the problem of overcapacity is something which we cannot accept. However, we can accept that decommissioning as part of a sensible package of effective control may have a role. Therefore, we shall discuss it with all aspects of the industry. I frequently meet representatives of the NFFO—as it happens, I met them this morning to discuss a different matter. We met the Scottish Fishermen's Federation in Brussels early last week in the margins of the Council. I shall continue to have the closest contact with those organisations and also with those representing other parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the Minister recollect that only a few moments ago the Secretary of State was ranting and railing at the House, telling us that we must accept all European solutions? As there is a European solution with decommissioning, as there is access to European Community money and given the fact that he has been much more conciliatory today, will he now push strongly in his discussions with the various bodies for a proper decommissioning scheme as part of the conservation measures? We would all welcome that.

Mr. Curry: The problem with the European scheme is that it regards decommissioning as being isolated from other conservation measures. I have made it clear that that is not a sensible approach, but we shall certainly consider it in the context of a more thorough approach to conservation. Certainly, we hope to advance that conservation matter at the next Fisheries Council in October. I repeat my promise to remain in contact with all the organisations involved.

Mr. Bellingham: The Minister will be aware that the Wash shell fishery in my constituency has its own peculiar problems, and the fishermen there are extremely grateful

that he took time off last Friday to visit them. Does he believe that the decommissioning scheme that is being talked of could have any relevance for that fishery?

Mr. Curry: Whatever scheme we introduced would be extendable to all British fisheries. We could not possibly produce a scheme that would apply only to a small sector of the industry. I realise that my hon. Friend's fishery is a special case, as it is basically a shellfish fishery, but we would not consider excluding it.

Mr. Morley: We welcome the Government's partial U-turn: we are glad that they are moving towards a decommissioning scheme. Is the Minister aware, however, that this week 900 jobs were lost in a fish processing factory in Grimsby? One of the main reasons for that—apart from the economic recession that the Government have caused—is that the lack of a coherent policy for the fishing industry has caused problems with the price and supply of fish.
Will the Minister embark on talks on decommissioning, as part of a package to ensure that we have a stable and sustainable fishing industry? How much longer must we wait for a decommissioning scheme and how many more jobs must be lost before the Minister comes up with one?

Mr. Curry: We all regret the closure of the Findus factory and the consequent job losses. The problem is that there are not enough fish. To what extent would the hon. Gentleman be willing to liberalise imports to ensure increased supplies for the processing sector? That is an important question.

Beer and Lager

Mrs. Currie: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the balance of trade in beer and lager products.

Mr. Curry: Net imports of beer and lager were valued at just under £89 million in 1990.

Mrs. Currie: As the Minister knows, many of my constituents work in Burton-on-Trent breweries run by companies such as Bass. Is not it a disgrace that we should have a trade deficit in beer and lager products? Given that many lager drinkers cannot tell the difference anyway, should we not be able to make Australian-type, Canadian-type, Danish-type and German-type lagers in Britain? If we can manufacture Japanese cars in this country and sell them successfully to Japan, why on earth do we have a trade deficit in beer and lager products, instead of a great big surplus?

Mr. Curry: I was born in Burton-on-Trent and no one could feel a greater desire than mine for its products to be exported much more widely.

Mr. Ron Davies: Is not it a sad reflection on a country with such a fine tradition of brewing that we now import twice as much beer and lager as we export? Is not that typical of the state of our trade balance in the food and drinks sector generally which currently has a deficit of over £5 billion? If the French, German and Dutch Governments can support their export initiatives, why on earth do our Government refuse to back British export initiatives and British interests?

Mr. Curry: First, the British Government provide such support; secondly, the breweries are, on the whole, extremely large companies and quite capable of being in the export business themselves: thirdly, the exporting habit is, unfortunately, not as widespread in the United Kingdom as it should be.
We have considerably expanded our beer and lager exports. Many of the lagers that are sold here are brewed in the United Kingdom under licence and there is no reason why—if we pay more attention to priorities—we should not be able to export more British lagers to the European Community. When my right hon. Friend the Minister and I visit Brussels, we never find it impossible to locate a hostelry offering British beer in the capital of Europe.

BSE

Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the total incidence and regional concentrations of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in England and Wales.

Mr. Maclean: The incidence of confirmed cases of BSE in 1990 was about 0·33 per cent. of the average adult cattle population of England and Wales. Nearly half those cases have occurred in the south-west of England.

Mr. Barnes: Will the Minister confirm that BSE rates are as high as ever in this country and that there are now 31,000 confirmed cases? The Government estimated that there would be 20,000. Why is there such a difference between the Government's hope and the reality?

Mr. Maclean: The disease is following the pattern predicted by the epidemiologists. In the past few months the increase has been very slight, although the overall number of cases continues, slowly, to rise. We would expect that. The source of the disease was cut off a few years ago, when the Government took action on animal feeding. The animals now appearing with the disease were infected earlier and we must now wait until the numbers decline and die out of the system.

Mr. Marland: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on the steps that the Government have taken to eradicate BSE? If the Ministry has any influence on planning applications for the construction of BSE incinerators, will he treat them with great care and ensure that no animal incinerators are put anywhere near residential areas or even in industrial estates? The devices should be situated in isolated areas that are well away from everything else.

Mr. Maclean: My Ministry will give all the help that it can to local authorities and others, including technical advice on the design of incinerators for carcase disposal.

Mr. Ted Garrett: Does the Minister accept that there are 20 million tonnes of cereals in stock within the EC intervention fund? Does he accept also that despite the complaints of some that we are having a wet summer, the signs are that we shall have another record cereal crop? Arising from those two simple facts, is the Minister sure that the set-aside scheme is working?

Mr. Curry: The set-aside scheme was never designed to deal with cereal surpluses. Instead, it was designed to give some assistance to those who found it difficult to face the

downward movement of prices. We still regard the scheme as part of the formula, but we regard producer closeness to the marketplace as the essential centrepiece of any reform of the sector.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 July.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is conducting bilateral discussions with President Gorbachev.

Mr. Hinchliffe: In view of the embarrassing revelations that the Secretary of State for Employment knew in June 1990 of possible embezzlement and fraud at BCCI and that the Department of Trade and Industry stated that it has not received the letters which the right hon. and learned Gentleman says he sent to it on the matter, will the Leader of the House, as a matter of urgency, set up a full and independent inquiry into the whole sorry affair?

Mr. MacGregor: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment received a letter from the BCCI staff which primarily expressed concern about redundancy arrangements at the bank. He received also a copy of a covering letter which the association sent to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). My right hon. and learned Friend wrote to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield on these matters and, as far as I know, the right hon. Gentleman did not come back to him on them.
As for the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I understand that the matter is being looked into at this very moment.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 July.

Mr. MacGregor: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Sir Fergus Mongomery: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if a member of the Cabinet was accused publicly by his colleagues of being unwise, unprincipled and responsible for confusion, he should do the decent thing and resign? If he agrees with that principle, and if he has noticed an item on the front page of The Guardian, should not the shadow Foreign Secretary resign?

Mr. MacGregor: I say to my hon. Friend—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the supplementary question was in order.

Mr. MacGregor: I cannot imagine any of my colleagues saying such a thing about any member of the Cabinet. If my hon. Friend is referring to the comments in the press this morning of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) about the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), I was interested that he said,
Everybody knows"—
this is the statement on defence—


it's a policy change, but no one is admitting it.
If the right hon. Gentleman says, "We will not get rid of nuclear weapons under any circumstances", that really is a change. This demonstrates that the Labour party—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Lord President should relate his reply to Government policy.

Mr. MacGregor: Government policy is very clear on the nuclear question, but the Opposition cannot, even now, give a simple answer to a simple question about their defence policy.

Mr. Hattersley: I look forward to receiving a simple answer to a simple question. Does the Leader of the House share the view expressed by the director general of the Confederation of British Industry on the "Today" programme this morning that Britain is no longer suffering from a depression but from a slump?

Mr. MacGregor: I share the view—[Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This takes up a lot of time.

Mr. MacGregor: I will give the right hon. Gentleman a simple answer to his question. The CBI's director general said on the "Today" programme this morning:
The manufacturing side of our economy is in much better international shape than it's been for many years.
That is a much simpler answer than the right hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members have given on the nuclear issue for many months.

Mr. Hattersley: It may have been a simple answer to someone's question, but not mine. Can the Leader of the House attempt to justify his evasive answer having seen, as I suspect he has, the European Community's judgment on the British economy? It is that British investment will fall next year, while German investment will increase by 6 per cent.; and that unemployment in Great Britain will rise to more than 3 million next year, accounting for more than half the total increase throughout the whole Community. If that is not a slump, how would the right hon. Gentleman define one?

Mr. MacGregor: We made it clear in the Budget forecast that recovery would begin in the second half and that view is shared by the CBI and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. As to the European Commission's predictions on unemployment, I point out that it does not have a good record of making accurate forecasts. It indicated that unemployment in Germany would rise and it has not; and that employment in France would grow and it did not; and it asserted that training skill levels for school leavers were lower in West Germany than in Greece—and I do not think that anyone else believes that. I suspect that the Commission's unemployment forecast will turn out to be as accurate as that of the right hon. Gentleman in the 1983 general election, when he forecast that unemployment in this country would rise to 4 million—and it never did.

Mr. Hattersley: The Leader of the House does not seem to have a good record when it comes to remembering the Prime Minister's forecasts. In the House last week, the Prime Minister revised his forecast for recovery from the second half of this year to round about Christmas. Is not the truth that now that the glitz and glamour of the G7

summit is over, we are back in the real world of Britain's economic situation—and that real world is a catastrophe, caused by the Conservatives' policy of the past 10 years?

Mr. MacGregor: The most important things for long-term prosperity and for jobs are to get inflation down, as we are doing and which Labour singularly failed to do, and to keep public expenditure under control and at reasonable levels, which Labour also singularly failed to do. The right hon. Gentleman may remember that at the last general election, he committed Labour to increasing public expenditure by some £34 billion. Labour is at it again and that would be a real recipe for disaster for growth in the early part of the 1990s.

Mr. Bevan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 July.

Mr. MacGregor: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave a few moments ago.

Mr. Bevan: While we welcome the impending nuclear disarmament that will emanate from the G7 summit, does my right hon. Friend agree that Britain's independent nuclear deterrent would be put at risk, and could lose all credibility, if we cancelled the fourth Trident submarine —as Labour proposes to do?

Mr. MacGregor: I share my hon. Friend's strong welcome for the agreement on the START negotiations that was reached yesterday and I am sure that the House shares that welcome. However, my hon. Friend was right to draw attention to the sham of Labour's defence policy. Not only is it totally confusing, but although they will keep nuclear weapons for negotiations, on the other hand they totally undermine the credibility of our deterrent. Four Trident submarines are essential to ensure that one is on station all the time.

Mr. Madden: Why are the Government trying to gloss over the background to the closure of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International? Why are they refusing to hold an inquiry into the Bank of England's role? What advice did the Treasury give to local authorities around the country? Most of all, what did the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) do with the correspondence alleging corruption and negligence inside the bank which he apparently received from the present Secretary of State for Employment?

Mr. MacGregor: There is absolutely no glossing over. Obviously, we are all concerned about what has happened to a number of small depositors and borrowers at BCCI. The important thing now is for the Bank and the liquidator to get on with the practical arrangements and to move as fast as possible. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already said that he will be reviewing what happened and will see what lessons can be learnt from it. The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) will be aware that the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee is meeting next week and that the Governor of the Bank of England will give evidence to it. Obviously many questions can be asked about what has happened over that period. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no question of trying to cover up and no question of a sham.

Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his engagements for Thursday 18 July 1991.

Mr. MacGregor: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Nicholson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the European regional funds, from which businesses in my constituency are unlikely to benefit significantly, were massively increased, the result would be a heavy cost to the British taxpayer? Does he also agree that it would be the height of irresponsibility to recommend such a policy without working out or stating honestly its cost? Is not that what we have come to expect from the shadow Foreign Secretary and the Labour party?

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is referring to some of the practical issues that arise out of moving very quickly to convergence and why it is right to take the view that the Government take in relation to economic and monetary union and moving to a single currency. If one moved to convergence very quickly and that required a very big increase in regional funds very early, it would mean taking more money from taxpayers in Scotland to give to Sicily.

Mr. Salmond: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his engagements for Thursday 18 July 1991.

Mr. MacGregor: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave a few moments ago.

Mr. Salmond: What information, if any, was supplied by the Bank of England to Treasury Ministers, including the present Prime Minister, on the contents of the October 1990 Price Waterhouse report indicating serious fraud in BCCI? Does the Leader of the House accept that if it can be established that Ministers or the regulatory authorities had knowledge well before June this year of serious fraud in that bank, the Government cannot continue to wash their hands of the financial disaster facing depositors and local authorities?

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman is probably referring to the Price Waterhouse report of March 1990. He said October, but I understand that it was in March. We are probably talking about the same report. The Bank had given the Treasury explicit assurances that although previous audit reports showed evidence of poor banking standards and losses—this applies to all these reports—they provided no evidence on which it could act in respect of the widespread fraud that was subsequently uncovered in the section 41 report. The evidence of bad banking standards and losses was being tackled by injections of capital from shareholders and by substantial management changes. It was the change in management that ultimately

led to the discovery of extensive fraud, which led to the section 41 investigation. That was the first time that the Bank had evidence of serious and widespread fraud on which to take action.

Mr. Knapman: Does my right hon. Friend recall the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) on Tuesday and the slur and slander by the general secretary of the Labour party on the President of the United States and particularly on the President's manner of election? Has my right hon. Friend received any indication from the Leader of the Opposition that he wishes to dissociate himself—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This matter is not the Government's responsibility. [Interruption.] This is taking time. Let us move on.

Mr. Douglas: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 July.

Mr. MacGregor: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave a few moments ago.

Mr. Douglas: While not being too thirled to statistics, although they are important, will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the rate of unemployment in the United Kingdom and Scotland is dramatically high and is producing great suffering? Will the Government and the right hon. Gentleman in particular stop behaving like a cross between a pit bull terrier and a Scot—a Scots terrier —[Interruption.]—the type of dog which would ravage us first and then scurry away to get the ambulance. When the ambulance man comes along, he pours on the iodine and says, "If it isn't hurting, it isn't working." It is hurting, but it ain't working because it is producing great suffering on the part of the people of Scotland and many unfulfilled opportunities.

Mr. MacGregor: Obviously we regret any increase in unemployment, because it affects families very substantially, but it is important to keep the matter in context. If one looks at the other side of the coin, one will see that there are 1 million more jobs than there were in 1979. We have more jobs in this country than most other countries as a proportion of the working population.
We are taking extensive measures to deal with unemployment, particularly the longer-term unemployed. It is significant that about half of all the unemployed find jobs within three months. It is also quite reasonable to point out that a wide variety of the measures that the main Opposition party is putting forward would increase unemployment, destroy part-time jobs, impose extra burdens on industry and therefore make the position much worse.

Business of the House

Mr. Bruce Grocott: May we have the business for next week, please?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 22 JULY—Motion for the summer Adjournment, followed by proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
TUESDAY 23 JULY—Consideration of any Lords amendments which may be received to the Ports Bill.
Proceedings on consolidation measures. Details will be given in the Official Report.
WEDNESDAY 24 JULY—Opposition Day (19th allotted day). There will be a debate described as "The Failure of the Government's Economic Policies" on an Opposition motion.
Supplemental timetable motion on and consideration of any Lords amendments which may be received to the Dangerous Dogs Bill.
THURSDAY 25 JULY—Debates on the Adjournment.
The House may be asked to consider any other Lords amendments which may be received.
It may also be for the convenience of the House to know that the provisional business for the first week after the summer Adjournment will be as follows:
MONDAY 14 OCTOBER and TUESDAY 15 OCTOBER—There will be a debate on a Government motion to approve the Defence Estimates 1991 (Cm 1559, volumes 1 and 2).
At the end on Tuesday, motion to take note of EC document No. 5577/91 relating to the future of the European Coal and Steel Community. Details will be given in the Official Report.
WEDNESDAY 16 OCTOBER—Second Reading of the Cardiff Bay Barrage (No. 2) Bill, subject to the decision of the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
THURSDAY 17 OCTOBER—Debate on a motion to take note of the outstanding reports of the Public Accounts Committee to which the Government have replied.
FRIDAY 18 OCTOBER—Debate on the policing of London on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The House may be asked to consider any other Lords amendments which may be received.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee A will meet at 10.30 am on Tuesday 23 July to consider European Community Document No. 4717/91 relating to the Environmental Labelling Scheme.

[Tuesday 23 July:

Proceedings on the Consolidation Measures
Water Industry Bill [Lords]
Water Resources Bill [Lords]
Statutory Water Companies Bill [Lords]
Land Drainage Bill [Lords]
Water Consolidation (Consequential Provisions) Bill [Lords]
Deer Bill [Lords]

Statute Law Revision (Isle of Man) Bill [Lords]
Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill [Lords]
Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Regulations.

Tuesday 23 July:

European Standing Committee A
Relevant European Community Document
4717/91 Ecological Labelling
Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee
HC 29-xv ( 1990–91), HC 29-xxv (1990–91).

Tuesday 15 October:

Floor of the House
Relevant European Community Document
5577/91 Future of ECSC Treaty
Relevant Report of European Legislation Committee
HC 29-xviii (1990–91).]

Mr. Grocott: Following the exchanges at Prime Minister's Question Time on the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, can the Leader of the House arrange for either the Secretary of State for Employment or the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make a statement to the House to spell out exactly what has happened to two letters, one dated 12 June last year and one dated 19 June last year, which drew attention to the serious problems facing BCCI and which now seem to have gone missing? My hon. Friends the Members for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) received totally unsatisfactory answers. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the relevant Secretary of State comes to the House to give an answer?
I wish to refer to the controversy over the Government's failure to make a statement on Rosyth and related naval matters earlier this week. Will the Leader of the House confirm what we know to be the case, but we want to see it on the record, that at no stage did the Government offer us, the Opposition, a statement on Rosyth on Tuesday? We should like public confirmation of that.
On another matter relating to defence and the need for a statement, will the Leader of the House undertake that the Secretary of State for Defence will come to the House next week to give us details of the proposed regimental changes and—this is important to many of our constituents—their implications for the civilian employees of Ministry of Defence establishments? We want to know the Government's precise plans as early as possible.
Given today's horrendous unemployment figures—this is the 15th consecutive monthly increase—will the Leader of the House confirm that our only opportunity to debate that will be in our precious and limited Opposition time next Wednesday and that, once again, not surprisingly, the Government have refused to find time for a debate on the jobs crisis that is affecting so many people?
I turn now to another important point—[Interruption.] I am sorry if the Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart), is getting upset, but these are important matters—[Interruption.] Believe me, the Leader of the House is nothing to do with me.
I am sure that, like us all, the Leader of the House recalls that the House was rightly recalled during last summer's recess for an emergency debate on the Gulf. We all fervently hope that there will not be any comparable need for Parliament to be recalled during this recess, but may I have the absolute assurance from the Leader of the


House that if there is a crisis, either abroad or domestically, which leads us, the Opposition, to ask for a recall of Parliament the right hon. Gentleman will see to it that Parliament is rapidly recalled?
The one reason—[Interruption.] It is always nice to annoy Conservative Members, Mr. Speaker. Finally—Conservative Members will not like this one either—the real reason why we should dearly like Parliament to be recalled during the summer recess is so that the Prime Minister can dissolve the House of Commons and call a general election. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that there is no prospect of the Prime Minister plucking up the courage to do that?

Mr. MacGregor: That was a large number of questions and I should be here for a long time if I were to reply to them in full, which is what I am tempted to do. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's first point about the letters, I have answered the main substance of that, as I understand it. I said that the letters related to redundancies at BCCI and that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has responded to that. I have said that another point that was raised in the letters is now being looked into. I shall certainly ensure that the House is informed, but that it is informed in the appropriate way. We must judge the right way to inform the House.
In answer to the hon. Gentleman's point about a statement on Rosyth, it is always difficult to strike a balance between ensuring that we get on with the announced business of the day, which is often very full, and deciding on the number of oral statements that should be made, and when. The hon. Gentleman knows that, through the usual channels, we spend a great deal of time trying to get that right in the interests of the House. I hope that I have got it right on most occasions, although I do not claim that I have always done so. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence discussed with me the possibility of an oral statement, but it was my understanding that the Opposition did not want an oral statement on their half-day Supply day. Therefore, I decided that it would not be appropriate to have an oral statement on that day. I wish to make that clear. There was a genuine misunderstanding about the matter. I hope that the House feels that the decision that we took following discussion between the usual channels to make a statement yesterday was the right way to proceed.
The hon. Gentleman asked about a statement on the review of the regimental system. I can confirm that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will make a statement before the House rises for the summer recess. I am not sure whether it will cover civilians, but I shall certainly convey to my right hon. Friend the hon. Gentleman's request. The hon. Gentleman said that the matter caused anxiety among his constituents. I am sure that he accepts the point made rather frequently yesterday that one cannot express anxiety about such matters and possible losses of jobs as a result of the changed requirements facing defence and at the same time advocate much larger reductions in defence expenditure. I hope that that will be borne in mind when my right hon. Friend makes his statement.
I am tempted to give the hon. Gentleman a long and full answer on unemployment, but I shall forbear to take the opportunity to do so. There have been many opportunities, including in Government time, to discuss economic matters and unemployment. It was possible to

do so during the proceedings on the Finance Bill and on several other occasions. It will be possible to raise unemployment next week in time other than the Opposition Supply day. It could be raised on the motion for the Adjournment, in the Consolidated Fund debate and in the debates on the Adjournment on Thursday. If unemployment is raised in the debate on the motion for the Adjournment, I shall certainly point out the consequences for employment of Labour policies.
Naturally, if there is a crisis which justifies recalling Parliament, we shall do so. Whether it was justified would have to be a matter for discussion through the usual channels.
In response to the hon. Gentleman's point about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, let me say that the Government have a great deal of excellent business still to do. The Government are getting ahead with the firm and proper business of government. I have the utmost confidence in my right hon. Friend's judgment, including his judgment about when we should have a general election.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I draw the attention of the House once again to the busy day ahead of us? I ask hon. Members to ask questions about business next week or when we return. Will they also bear in mind the ballot that has been taken to select the subjects for the Consolidated Fund Bill debates? I ask hon. Members not to ask questions about matters which will be the subject of a debate on Monday.

Sir Philip Goodhart: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will probably be no statement about the channel tunnel rail link route before the House rises for the summer recess? Is it seriously proposed that there should be no public statement until the House reassembles on 14 October? In view of the great interest in the route, the great anxiety that the matter causes and the related problem of blight, will my right hon. Friend persuade the Secretary of State for Transport to make an official statement during the recess followed by a statement in the House as soon as we return?

Mr. MacGregor: I am aware of the great interest in that matter. I will certainly discuss with my right hon. and learned Friend the suggestion made by my hon. Friend. I am aware of the anxiety of many people that a statement should be made as soon as possible. However, my hon. Friend will recognise that we have a crowded programme for next week.

Mr. Speaker: It may be for the convenience of the House, if the House will allow me, to draw attention to the first 12 debates that have been drawn out of the ballot for the Consolidated Fund: first, United Kingdom relations with Latin America; second, Her Majesty's Government's policy with regard to Cambodia; third, the Department of Health's decision to license RU486; fourth, BCCI; fifth, nuclear deterrence; sixth, the number of High Court judges; seventh, trade union reform; eighth, economic and employment prospects for Londoners; ninth, European Community agricultural policy; tenth, training and enterprise councils; eleventh, tourism and the case for a tourism ombudsman; twelfth, the construction industry.

Mr. James Wallace: As a member of the Select Committee on Procedure, may I congratulate the Leader of the House on responding so promptly with the motion to be debated today on the Committee's report on Select Committees? In that the motion allows for an expansion of the remit of the Scottish Affairs Committee, and knowing that the Leader of the House would not wish the House to embark on an academic or window-dressing exercise, may we assume that next week the motion will be laid for setting up a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs?

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. I must tell him in all honesty—because I always believe in being frank in these matters —that he is being a trifle optimistic in his hope for next week.

Mr. John Bowis: If, as seems likely, during the summer recess the Labour party falls apart over militants, Europe, defence and trade union matters, will my right hon. Friend consider recalling Parliament so that the nation may be aware of exactly where the Labour party stands on all those issues and so that we on this side may capitalise on it?

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend makes an ingenious suggestion, but it is not in the category of crisis because the Labour party will not have the opportunity of applying its policies in practice. A number of other events will be taking place during the recess, not least two conferences, where I have no doubt that the divisions in the Labour party will be clearly revealed.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Has the Leader of the House seen today's publication of the Public Accounts Committee report on the debacle of the abolition of the dock labour scheme? Is he aware that that report says that the scheme was intended to cost £25 million but actually cost the Government £141 million? According to the report, that was due to the crass incompetence of the Government rushing through the legislation without any checks. The Conservatives' blinkered ideology led them to push ahead without considering the consequences. Will the right hon. Gentleman find time for a debate so that every member of the Government may bear his share of responsibility? If the municipal treasurer of any Labour-controlled authority had made such wildly wrong estimates and cost his authority such a great sum, he would be drummed out of office, as the Government soon will be.

Mr. MacGregor: The Government will reply to the report of the Public Accounts Committee in the usual way, and a debate will take place on those matters also in the usual way.

Sir Robert McCrindle: My right hon. Friend will have seen that 43 right hon. and hon. Members have added their signatures to early-day motion 1084 under the heading, "Immigration: (Carriers' Liability)".
[That this House, whilst recognising the intention of restricting improper attempts to enter the United Kingdom, as outlined by the Home Secretary in his statement of 2nd July 1991, is of the opinion that the doubling of the £1,000 charge payable by the carrier for each passenger who fails to produce valid documents is an unfair imposition on the great

majority of British shipping and aviation carriers who have attempted to comply with the requirements of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987.]
He will be aware that that relates to the Government's proposal to increase from £1,000 to £2,000 the fine levied on airlines for carrying immigrants to this country without adequate papers. Has he also noted that a prayer has been tabled to annul that order? Can he guide me on whether, as we approach the recess, the introduction of that doubling of the fine can take place before the matter has been debated in the House, that prayer having been tabled? In other words, any intention by the Government to rush it through will not now be possible until we resume on 14 October.

Mr. MacGregor: I will write to my hon. Friend on the procedural point he raised. Regarding the point of substance in the early-day motion, during the first three months of this year more than 2,400 cases of improperly documented passengers were recorded. We recognise that some carriers are making efforts to check documentation prior to departure, but in many cases those could be made more stringent. Some carriers are known to be making less vigorous checks, or none at all. My hon. Friend will recognise that there is widespread concern in the country about people arriving at United Kingdom airports without proper documentation, and that adds greatly to the problems of dealing with immigration cases and so on. That is why the Government thought it necessary to increase the charge payable.

Mr. David Winnick: Does the Leader of the House recall that last week he told me he would convey to the Secretary of State for Defence my concern over the case of three soldiers, one a constituent of mine, who lost their legs? Has he seen my new early-day motion 1134, which congratulates The Times on its excellent coverage of, and leading article on, the case on Monday?
[That this House welcomes the leader in The Times on 15th July which called for adequate compensation to be paid to the three guardsmen, Adrian Hicks, Sean Povey and John Ray, who lost their legs in a training exercise in July 1989; recognises the support given for compensation by a very large number of honourable Members as well as very senior officers in the Grenadier Guards and the general public; and urges that this matter be satisfactorily resolved before the House rises on 25th July.]
May we have an assurance that the matter will be dealt with in some way before the House rises for the recess? An injustice has been done to three young men who joined the Army for the very best of reasons and who, through no fault of theirs, have been crippled for life. I hope that I shall not be misunderstood if I say that it is unfortunate —I do not blame the Leader of the House—that the matter has been trivialised by hon. Members wearing or not wearing top hats. The issue is extremely serious and Members on both sides of the House are deeply concerned about it.

Mr. MacGregor: I am aware of the concern, and I know that my right hon. Friend is also aware of it. Indeed, I have passed on the concern, not only after it was mentioned last week but on several occasions, and my right hon. Friend continues to give it serious and urgent attention. As the hon. Gentleman will know, these are difficult and complex matters. However, everyone has great sympathy for those concerned and we are anxious to ensure that they have full


information. The hon. Gentleman probably knows of a meeting that took place recently between officials and the legal representatives of the three guardsmen. I shall again convey the hon. Gentleman's feelings, which I know are shared by my hon. Friends. I cannot promise a statement next week, but I shall certainly discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend to see how any further information can be passed on during the recess.

Mr. David Tredinnick: Serious allegations have been made of widespread abuse of children in three county council children's homes in Leicestershire during the 13-years period from 1974 to 1986. The allegations are concerned with the sexual abuse and assault of the children. Charges are pending in respect of the allegations —[Interruption.] Therefore, the case is sub judice and I cannot comment further—[Interruption.] I have taken advice on this matter, Mr. Speaker. However, without prejudging the outcome of the case, if those allegations are substantiated, it is my firm opinion and that of the Conservative group leader on Leicestershire county council that there should be a full public inquiry——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that that is enough. The hon. Gentleman has now made his point.

Mr. MacGregor: I recognise that the case is presently before the court and is therefore sub judice. I understand, however, that the local authority has commissioned an independent review and has asked the Department of Health social services inspectorate to carry out an inspection of its children's homes.

Mr. Gordon McMaster: Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) and the Renfrew district council on the case that they have put forward for a national stadium in Renfrew district? Will he find time next week for the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a statement on the future of a national stadium for Scotland? Does he agree that this is not merely a Scottish matter because the Scots think that supporters of English football teams have a right to see their teams being beaten in comfort?

Mr. MacGregor: I shall not be tempted to answer the last question because I have views on that and it might be unwise to express them. I cannot promise a statement on that matter next week. We have a lot of business and I have already mentioned the problems involved in achieving a balance. Obviously other opportunities are available to the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter.

Mr. Michael Latham: Will my right hon. Friend announce next week the results of the inquiry that he promised to carry out into how executive agencies should report through Ministers to the House? Is he aware that, if we continue with the present arrangements, with answers not being given properly in Hansard, the House will lose control of those agencies, which are staffed exclusively by civil servants paid with public money?

Mr. MacGregor: I have already mentioned ways in which all the information can be made available to the House and the public. My hon. Friend will know, however, that the Procedure Committee has dealt with that issue in its recent report, and I understand that the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee is also

looking into it and may have recommendations to make. I shall wish to take account of the views of both Committees in my discussions with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Privy Council Office.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House will be aware of concern throughout the country about the continued imprisonment of the UDR Four. Last week we were assured that there would be a statement soon. How soon is soon? Am I being a trifle optimistic in hoping that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will make a statement before the House rises for the recess?

Mr. MacGregor: As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering the matter and will then decide whether, under his discretionary powers, he would be justified in referring the case back to the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal. I cannot say how soon "soon" is, but I shall have a further word with my right hon. Friend to see whether he can say when he is likely to come to a decision.

Mr. Keith Raffan: In yesterday's all-too-brief Welsh debate, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales rightly stressed his accountability to the House. Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House give an assurance that the Government will allocate a full day's debate on the Welsh Office consultation paper on the structure of local government in Wales before the consultation period on the document ends on 31 October?

Mr. MacGregor: I understand the importance of the matter, and there are many ways in which my hon. Friends can express their views on it. I would not wish to give my hon. Friend an assurance that it will be possible to have a full day's debate on the subject before 31 October. I am very much aware of the pressures on the timetable, and I have already announced the business for our first week back after the recess.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May we have a statement on the two letters of June 12 and June 19 last year, which were ultimately sent to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and which the Leader of the House said referred primarily to redundancy? Is it not true that those letters, which came from employees of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, contained allegations of fraud? Did not the writer of those letters predict that, unless the Government acted, there would be a catastrophe for both investors and employees?

Mr. MacGregor: I have already answered that question, and Mr. Speaker has announced that there will be a debate on the matter on Monday.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there would be a wide welcome for a statement on the guardsmen next week? Will he also confirm that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will make a statement on the G7 summit, which he conducted with such great skill?

Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that I can add to what I have already said about the guardsmen.
I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend said about the leadership that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has shown at the G7 summit, at which so many


constructive views and decisions were carried forward. I can confirm that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will make a statement on it in the House tomorrow.

Dr. Kim Howells: Will the Leader of the House consider setting aside time for a debate on the ramifications of the G7 summit? It should be a debate on, not so much the role that the Prime Minister played in the summit, but on the worries expressed—since the announcements were made yesterday—by those in eastern Europe who fear the wholesale collapse of the economies of the newly democratised countries of Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia because the Russians are not able to purchase their products? It is absolutely essential that the west takes a proper and positive role in supporting the Russian economy so that the newly democratised countries do not collapse.

Mr. MacGregor: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not feel able to acknowledge the outstanding leadership that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister showed at the summit yesterday, and I am sure that many hon. Members will wish to acknowledge that tomorrow. The issue to which the hon. Gentleman referred can be raised when my right hon. Friend makes his statement tomorrow——

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why tomorrow?

Mr. MacGregor: The answer to that question is simple: my right hon. Friend is having bilateral talks with President Gorbachev this afternoon, and therefore he wishes to report to the House at the earliest opportunity after those talks are completed.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the Leader of the House try to persuade the Attorney-General to make a statement next week on the specific allegation that Mr. Mohammed Fayed and others sought to discredit and attack the chairman, advisers and members of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry by making the appalling suggestion that they were subject to bribery and corruption? Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a far too serious issue to justify waiting till after the recess before a statement is made? Will he seek to persuade the Attorney-General to say what, if anything, the Government propose to do about it?

Mr. MacGregor: I shall draw my hon. Friend's comments to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Leader of the House clarify the position between himself and the other side of the usual channels in relation to the Rosyth statement? I thought that the right hon. Gentleman chose his words extremely carefully. Was it his view that the Opposition did not want a statement on Rosyth?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That happened yesterday.

Mr. Douglas: I understand that, but can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in future, we will have clarification as to what type of statement the Opposition refuse—whether they refuse a general statement or a statement on a specific subject such as Rosyth?

Mr. MacGregor: I think that the hon. Gentleman is asking for the impossible if he wants me to reveal exactly what discussions took place every time a statement is made or not made. Often those discussions cover a lengthy period. I cannot assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall do that in the future.

Sir Ian Lloyd: My right hon. Friend will know that, from time to time, I have asked that there should be a full day's debate at least once a year on science policy and the allocation of national science resources. My right hon. Friend will also know that the parliamentary office of science and technology has recently produced a report on the relationship between defence and civil research and development. Would it not be appropriate that that document should be one of the basic documents that we discuss during the two-day debate on defence in October?

Mr. MacGregor: I do not know whether we would want to table that document; I shall have to consider that. The main document is the defence White Paper, but matters relating to defence research and development could be raised during the debate.

Mr. John McFall: Further to the comments of the Leader of the House on the statement next week on the regimental structure, can he ensure that that statement will be made before Wednesday so that the Select Committee on Defence has an opportunity to examine it before the summer recess? When he communicates with the Secretary of State for Defence, can he refer him to column 357 of yesterday's edition of Hansard where the Secretary of State said that the Opposition should tell the truth? Today it has been proved that the Opposition did tell the truth, and the Leader of the House should tell his right hon. Friend to be more modest when he comes to the Dispatch Box next week.

Mr. MacGregor: On the statement next week, I cannot say now precisely when it will be as it is obviously a matter that must be considered early next week when we look at the business. I shall convey the hon. Gentleman's point to my right hon. Friend, but that must be without prejudice to exactly when we make the statement.

Mr. John Butcher: Has my right hon. Friend seen the early-day motions signed by Members on both sides of the House referring to the loss of heritage and identification in the counties of Lancashire and Yorkshire that has been felt by many of their constituents? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the unhappiness about the loss of ancient county references for postal purposes, road signs and for maps is widespread, not least in the west midlands where, ironically, Edgbaston cricket ground is no longer in the county of Warwickshire? Given that widespread unhappiness, will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate on this subject, preferably before the end of the recess, as the consultation period is under way now at the Department of the Environment?

Mr. MacGregor: There are many early-day motions and I do not carry the text of all of them in my head. I believe that my hon. Friend could raise that issue on the motion for the Adjournment on Monday.

Mr. Stuart Bell: Is the Leader of the House aware that there is growing concern on Teesside that the privatisation of the Tees and Hartlepool port as a


result of Government legislation that will be considered next week will result in that port falling into foreign hands under the Government's competitive tendering provisions? Is he aware that guidelines for the sale of ports were introduced in another place but are now in the Vote Office? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure me that the guidelines will end up in the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill rather than simply in the Vote Office?

Mr. MacGregor: I do not want to give a guarantee on that as that is a matter for my right hon. Friend. I do not know the details of the matter, but if the hon. Gentleman is right obviously the documents are in the Vote Office now. If that is the case, they are available. I shall convey the hon. Gentleman's point to my right hon. Friend, but this is an extremely late stage at which to consider additions to the Bill.

Mr. Philip Oppenheim: May we have a debate as soon as possible on air travel so that we can discuss, notwithstanding Lord King's fit of pique, the enormous benefits to air travel of the Government's policy of privatisation and increased competition? A debate would also give us the opportunity to explore the position of the Labour party. On the one hand, it constantly complains that we do not introduce enough competition into privatised industries, but, on the other, it lost absolutely no time in rushing to the defence of Lord King when he started to whine about having to face competition from companies such as Virgin Atlantic.

Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend that the policies that we have pursued—privatisation, greater competition and greater liberalisation among the world's airlines—have been greatly to the benefit of the consumer and have led to improved services. They are a clear indication that what we are doing is right for the consumer. I should welcome the opportunity for these matters to be debated in the House and to make the contrast suggested by my hon. Friend. However, I cannot give a guarantee that it will be during the next week or so.

Mr. Peter Hain: Will the Leader of the House find time for a statement next week on the disturbing evidence of Mr. Robin Robison, former administrative officer of the Joint Intelligence Committee, who has shown that sophisticated eavesdropping technology is now so totally out of control that many people, including a former wing commander in the Royal Air Force, a former Falklands war hero and possibly scores of Members of Parliament, are having their telephones tapped without the prior knowledge of any Minister, let alone Parliament? It is a constitutional outrage. The Home Secretary should come to the House and explain his role.

Mr. MacGregor: The Interception of Communications Act 1985 requires interception to be authorised by a warrant issued by a Secretary of State. It provides for the oversight of the arrangement by an independent commissioner and provides a mechanism for complaint by individuals to a tribunal. I do not think, therefore, that a separate statement by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is needed. Certainly it would not be right to comment on individual allegations.

Mr. Nigel Forman: In view of the considerable importance attached by many of my constituents to improved public transport, can my

right hon. Friend offer the prospect of an early debate—if not before the House rises, then during the overspill period —on the question of the future of London bus transport? If one is looking for an improved way to carry more people safely and with energy efficiency in London, better conditions for travel by bus are paramount.

Mr. MacGregor: I recognise my hon. Friend's concern, but I cannot provide him with an assurance that during the overspill period, which is never very long, there will be time for a debate on that matter. There are other ways, however, in which my hon. Friend can raise it on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Ian McCartney: My question is a matter of concern to hon. Members in all parts of the House—the violence in the security industry and the clear evidence that it has been infiltrated by organised crime. Guns and other dangerous weapons are being used against members of the public and the staff employed by publicans and others in the leisure industry. Is it not time that the Secretary of State for the Home Department made a statement to the House on whether he intends to introduce regulation of the industry to prevent those criminal elements from infiltrating the security industry further, thereby allowing security companies that want to operate effectively to do so, thus protecting individuals, the police and other members of the community from the dangerous activities of these men of violence?

Mr. MacGregor: Although there are many important matters that could be raised in the House, the time available for doing so in Government time, or in statements next week and during the first week after we return from the summer recess, is limited. There are other ways, including putting questions to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, that the hon. Gentleman could use to pursue the matter further.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the amendment to his motion on the Order Paper, "Select Committees Related to Government Departments", which has been tabled by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and myself, proposing that there should be a Select Committee on Northern Ireland? Northern Ireland has——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is referring to today's business?

Mr. Stanbrook: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: I am going to select the amendment. Does that help?

Mr. Stanbrook: I am asking about the Government's attitude to the amendment, because it will be reached at a very late hour. Northern Ireland has more Ministers per head of population than any other part of the United Kingdom, yet it has the least parliamentary discussion. This is a way in which we can increase the discussion. Will the Government accept that amendment?

Mr. MacGregor: It would be very unfair if I were to deal now with all the matters that are to be raised later in the day. It is appropriate that I should deal with them when we reach them later in the day.

Mr. Ron Brown: As the Leader of the House knows, the health service is important to all of us, yet it is disgraceful that the local health board for the Lothian region has repeatedly broken commitments to the community, particularly the community in Leith, which in particular means that a promised new hospital will not be built, unless it is with private money. Is that not something that we should debate next week? Is it not something that we should look at closely because it is a betrayal of everyone who has contributed to the health service? At the end of the day, we are talking not about charity but about a basic right. The Government talk about a citizens' charter. Let us discuss the health service and that hospital above all else.

Mr. MacGregor: I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's point about charity. Substantial funds are being spent on the health service as a whole and on the Lothian health board. I dispute entirely any idea that that health board has been underfunded because it has been funded on the same basis as other health boards. This year it received an allocation of £352 million for recurrent expenditure in 1992. In real terms, that represents an increase of nearly 28 per cent. since 1979.

Mr. Rupert Allason: Is my right hon. Friend aware of growing public anxiety at the shady activities of charity promoters and some charities? Would that be an appropriate subject for debate as soon as possible after the recess, bearing in mind that it is now 10 years since Christian Aid submitted its accounts to the Charity Commissioners? Will my right hon. Friend consider with his Cabinet colleagues legislation to be announced in the Queen's Speech to give the Charity Commissioners some real teeth, bearing in mind the arrogant behaviour of Oxfam which, in its recent report, rejected the criticism of political activity?

Mr. MacGregor: I accept that there is a need to make considerable changes to charity legislation and we are committed to doing that. I should like to see us do so as soon as it is practicable. I cannot say that it will be included in the Queen's Speech because it is a matter for announcement at that time. However, I can give my hon. Friend an assurance that we are keen to undertake major changes in charity legislation as soon as we can.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Has the Leader of the House seen the press publicity this week about the activities of the Secretary of State for Education and Science in a school in Hampshire where children were plainly engaged in party political activity? As a former Secretary of State for Education and Science, does the Leader of the House recognise that the approval of parents and head teachers should have been secured before such activity commenced? Does he agree that the Secretary of State needs to maintain a balance to avoid the accusation that schools are no longer places of education but are being used, as in this case, for the purposes of indoctrination?

Mr. MacGregor: I have been photographed with school children on many occasions on the many visits that I have paid to schools; and I know that the same applies to Opposition Members as I have seen some of the photographs. Therefore, I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's point. If he regrets the fact that it was the occasion of the 100th grant-maintained school, I should

tell him that many people believe that grant-maintained schools are one of our most successful reforms. I see frequently that they are widely welcomed by parents and staff and I believe that they will be of great benefit to pupils as well.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Will the Leader of the House look carefully at the newspapers today and tell me whether he shares my horror and unhappiness at the continuing traumas of the vicar's daughter who was raped and whose attacker is now being let out of prison so early? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the crime of rape against women needs to be punished far more severely and that victims need much greater support? The Government have made large strides through much more sensitive police treatment and handling of these difficult cases, but the reality of that poor girl's plight is that she will now be living in fear and terror of being attacked again.

Mr. MacGregor: I support all my hon. Friend's general remarks and understand fully why she has made them. I cannot comment on the individual case because I have not yet had an opportunity to read the press report. As I have said, I certainly support the general thrust of what my hon. Friend said.

Ms. Kate Hoey: I am sure that the Leader of the House is aware of the increasing concern about the plight of the thousands of Shias who are stuck in the marshlands of southern Iraq, out of sight of television cameras—apart from one or two brave camera men and women who have gone there—and out of sight of the photographers. As the United Nationas envoy has recently been there, will the Leader of the House ask the Foreign Secretary to make a statement to the House before the recess on whether there is any possibility of the same effort being put into helping the Shias as has been put—rightly —into helping the Kurds?

Mr. MacGregor: I know of the House's interest in such matters, but I cannot guarantee that my right hon. Friend will be able to make a statement because of the pressure of business. However, the hon. Lady could raise the issue on the motion for the Adjournment on Monday if there is not time for a statement.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Does my right hon. Friend believe that this may be the time for a further debate on hospital trusts? Despite the blunders of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and other Labour Members in trying to mislead the public by saying that hospitals that apply for trust status are opting out, is my right hon. Friend aware that the excellent Heatherwood hospital in Ascot, in my constituency, which is applying for trust status, is having its application opposed by the local Labour party? The Labour party is asking the public to sign a petition which states that Heatherwood hospital is going private. That is a straightforward lie and a con, and a debate would give the hon. Member for Livingston and others the opportunity to put right members of the Labour party all over the country and to tell them to stop lying to our constituents.

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend has other ways in which to raise that issue, but I entirely agree that it is


wholly wrong to suggest that trust status means that a hospital is going private. Everyone knows that that is not true, and such a claim should not be repeated.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: As the Leader of the House has clearly read newspaper reports in the past two or three days about Tory Members of Parliament and some of their acolytes booking the Dining Rooms to make money for the Tory party, may we have a register of all such bookings when the House is sitting and during the recesses? I have the impression that, because the Tory party is losing the money that it once received from British Airways, Lord King and others, it is making up for that through those bookings and is abusing the procedures of the House with the local Tory parties around the country.

Mr. MacGregor: I recall having read in the press not long ago of a large and very expensive fund-raising dinner which took place on behalf of another political party. I merely draw that to the hon. Gentleman's attention.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Can my right hon. Friend find time to widen the debate on the way in which we conduct business in the House? In the past couple of days there has been a row about the problem of finding enough time for statements and to allow us to question Ministers on important matters which are usually of a narrow constituency interest. Will he consider extending the sensible system of Committees of the whole House which examine European business so that instead of going to a press conference Ministers could have a room in the House and access to hon. Members to make statements when there was not sufficient time to do so on the Floor of the House? We should then have a chance to question Ministers in front of members of the press and to have our queries answered.

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend will no doubt be able to make that suggestion to the Select Committee on Procedure and the Sittings of the House which we have just set up. However, I know that under all Governments—not just the present Government—a large number of statements are made during Government business on larger and smaller issues. There would be great practical constraints on carrying out his suggestion that all statements should be made in the House.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Is the Leader of the House aware that at a meeting in Oxford today UK Nirex will reach a decision—it may have already done so—about whether Sellafield or Dounreay will be the chosen site for the disposal of low and intermediate level radioactive waste? Is he also aware that UK Nirex has made it clear that that decision will not be made public for some considerable time? In view of the importance of the issue, especially in the highlands of Scotland, will he use his best offices to ask the Secretary of State for Energy to ensure that a statement is made to the House before the House rises next week? The industries and councils of the highlands and islands in particular will want to know whether the cloud has been lifted from their shoulders.

Mr. MacGregor: I did not know about today's meeting, and I can give no guarantee of further statements in the House next week, but I shall draw my right hon. Friend's attention to what the hon. Lady has said.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: As there will be no time for a debate on the volunteer reserve after

Monday's Consolidated Fund debate, will my right hon. Friend try to find time for such a debate in the next week? Is he aware of the concern felt by members of the Royal Observer Corps all over the country about the insensitivity with which the recent announcement about their future was made? I should like the matter to be thoroughly discussed, if that is possible.

Mr. MacGregor: It will not be possible for us to deal with the matter in Government time, but my hon. Friend may wish to take advantage of one of the opportunities that will be available to him next week.

Mr. Tony Banks: In replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), the Leader of the House referred to a fund-raising dinner held by the Labour party. That dinner was held outside the House, in Park lane; my hon. Friend was talking about the abuse of dining facilities in this place by Conservative Members who are using them to raise funds for the Tory party—and, it appears, bringing in strangers who appear to be charging for the use of those facilities.
This is an abuse, and the Leader of the House must deal with it very shortly. I hope that he will make a statement next week, and that, when he does so, he will tell us what is meant by the "annual quota of dinners" for Conservative Members. I have never heard of that. I have been here for a few years, and I have used the facilities, but I have never abused them. What is going on over there?

Mr. McGregor: I do not know what the annual quota is, so I shall have to look into it.

Mr. Simon Burns: As a degree of urgency is involved, will my right hon. Friend arrange before the summer recess for a number of copies of the newspaper Militant to be made available in the Library, the Tea Room, the Smoking Room and Norman Shaw as so many Opposition Members seem to enjoy reading it?

Mr. MacGregor: Many of us are aware of the considerable number of Opposition Members who support Militant policies. I shall be happy to acquaint my hon. Friend and others with some of the documents that I see in this connection; no doubt he will do the same.

Mr. Max Madden: May I press the Leader of the House on the question of the use of the Dining Rooms, and urge him to carry out an investigation? He must know—it has been reported throughout the national press this week, and mentioned in certain court proceedings—that there is an annual allocation of Dining Rooms to Conservative Members——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not referring to a case that I believe may be sub judice.

Mr. Madden: Indeed not.
It has also been claimed that commercial organisations posing as Conservative party fund raisers have free use of the Dining Rooms, and instruct Members of Parliament to take rich American tourists to the shop, the Terrace and the Strangers Gallery. Is it any wonder that our constituents cannot get into this place when it is chock full of American tourists being charged through the nose by these bogus organisations? It is high time that the Leader of the House carried out an urgent investigation and cleaned up this racket as soon as possible.

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) mentioned the contribution of British Airways. Last year, for every £1 contributed to the Conservative party by British Airways, the Transport and General Workers Union contributed nearly £40 to the Labour party, but I have not heard anyone suggest that members of the TGWU should not be allowed to come into the House and enjoy its facilities. I think that it is extremely difficult to draw the line.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance today to read an important and interesting article in the national press in which the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), makes it clear that his party's policy of a national minimum wage is "non-negotiable"? Given the immense concern outside the House about the policy and the fact that many organisations, including Labour organisations, have made it clear that the policy could cause up to 1 million jobs to be lost—a number of union leaders have variously described the policy as barmy or nonsensical—does my right hon. Friend really think that a one-day debate next Wednesday on the economy will be sufficient to allow my hon. Friends and I to draw attention to the catastrophic effects of the introduction of a national minimum wage?

Mr. MacGregor: That will clearly be quite a sizeable issue to be raised in the debate on Wednesday. I was interested that the newspaper report to which my hon. Friend referred stated that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) had also said that the Labour party had no intention of phasing in the reform of a national minimum wage. As I understand it, that is a change in the Labour party's policy. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has written today to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East on the matter, and I hope that we shall have an answer on Wednesday.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Could the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent debate on poll tax enforcement procedures? Is he aware that on Tuesday, on Tyneside, Susan Monson, a mother of three, was gaoled for three months—the longest sentence ever imposed for the "offence" of which she was found guilty —for inability to pay the poll tax? The fact was recognised this morning when the Tyneside council concerned withdrew the complaint from the court. It did so—it is to its credit that it did—when it was finally convinced that her only income was income support.
Where does that leave all the assurances that we have had from Ministers that no one who was unable to pay the poll tax would ever be sent to prison? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that we need a debate, during which he could announce that the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987, which abolished the medieval barbarity of putting people in prison for debt, would be extended, as it were, to stop such gaolings in England and Wales?

Mr. MacGregor: I cannot comment on the case to which the hon. Gentleman referred because I have not read a report of it and, therefore, I do not know all the details. The hon. Gentleman will know that there are arrangements for community charge rebates for those on lower incomes. He will know also that there is the greatest possible concern—the issue is raised whenever these

matters arise at meetings throughout the country—about those who have refused to pay the community charge and who have incited others not to do so.

Mr. John Marshall: May I thank my right hon. Friend for announcing a two-day debate on defence? It will enable many hon. Members to be called, including, I hope, many of the 150 who sympathise with CND. Did my right hon. Friend hear the sotto voce comment of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) that he would cancel the whole of the Trident programme? Would not that policy be disastrous for the defence of our country and for our standing in the world?

Mr. Bob Cryer: I shall say it as loudly and for as long as I can.

Mr. MacGregor: We have had two seated interjections, which have hardly been sotto voce, that have confirmed what my hon. Friend has said. There are clearly considerable divisions in the Labour party on the matter. That is something that can be raised legitimately during the two-day defence debate.

Mr. Cryer: Will the Leader of the House make a statement next week on the "World in Action" programme entitled "Defending the Realm", during which several eminent people close to the establishment made the serious claim that MI5 and MI6 are out of control and undertake surveillance, including telephone tapping, without ministerial authority? It was said that they have information from the telephone taps that are labelled to the effect that it is specifically to be excluded from information that is given to Ministers. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House in a statement why it is that at GCHQ—this was made clear during the programme—the number of people dealing with telephone taps has been increased to 75? These people could deal with 35,000 tappings a year, and yet the number of warrants that are issued by Ministers amount to only about 500. Is it not time, in the interests of democratic accountability, to stop that spy-crazed mania, which was pointed out by Peter Wright, and to replace it by decent democratic accountability to the House? We could start with a statement instead of a cover-up.

Mr. MacGregor: I did not see the programme to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but I will draw his comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to examine early-day motion 115, on third world debt and the Group of Seven summit?
[That this House is alarmed at the high level of debt of the world's poorest countries; notes that the reality of the world's economy is that through interest payments and repatriation of profits by multi-national companies there is an enormous net transfer of wealth from the poorest countries to the banking systems of the West; further deplores the way in which the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, GATT and Lomé convention are enforcing liberal free market economic regimes on the poorest countries with the consequent disastrous cuts in public spending, high unemployment, deteriorating environment, and health care; and accordingly calls for the G7 summit to propose the writing off of the debt and real increase in commodity prices for the poorest countries' products.]
I am aware that the Prime Minister is to make a statement tomorrow on the summit's outcome, but does the right hon. Gentleman accept the urgent need for a full debate on Government strategy for dealing with indebtedness by third world countries? Such indebtedness has resulted in famine in Africa; cholera in Peru, because of health service cuts there; and devastation in many other parts of the third world. All that is the consequence of debts that are unpayable and a commodity pricing system that robs the poor to give to the richest in the world. Unless we confront that issue, this year's catastrophes will be multiplied many times over the next few years, and we will then face real disaster.

Mr. MacGregor: As the hon. Gentleman knows, because that issue is frequently debated in the House, the Government support a substantial aid programme that includes technical and emergency assistance to some of the areas that he mentioned. The hon. Gentleman knows also that we pioneered debt relief for the world's poorest countries at various international forums, and the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister form the basis of the substantially improved treatment agreed yesterday at the London economic summit. Obviously the hon. Gentleman's point can be raised when my right hon. Friend makes his statement tomorrow.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Whatever may be the reasons, 1 million people are missing from the electoral register—2·5 per cent. of those eligible to vote in England, Scotland and Wales. When can we debate in prime time the problems that that situation creates? I hope that the Leader of the House will not tell me to pursue the issue in other ways, such as on an Adjournment debate, because as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, know, I have tried incessantly to do so for the past three years. The Government's lack of concern about electoral registration is an utter constitutional and democratic disgrace.

Mr. MacGregor: I have responded to the hon. Gentleman on that point on a number of occasions.

Mr. Andrew Smith: In view of the redundancies and short-time working that are affecting my constituents in Cowley, and car workers at Longbridge, Swindon, and elsewhere in the country, is there not an urgent need for a Government statement or a debate on the consequences for the British car industry of the Government's catastrophic economic policies? In the

depths of what is now a slump, ought not the Prime Minister to initiate a review of the high interest rates, high value added tax, and high special car tax policies that are so damaging to the car industry and change them before further damage is inflicted on that vital national industry?

Mr. MacGregor: I reject the hon. Gentleman's charges, but, as he knows, there is to be an economic debate next week.

Mr. Nicholas Brown (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East): The right hon. Gentleman said that, immediately after the House returns from the summer recess, we can expect a debate on the reports of the Public Accounts Committee. He will recall that when the House returned from last year's summer recess it debated the Committee's outstanding reports, but he may be unaware that during that recess it was not possible for right hon. and hon. Members to discover which reports were to be debated, or which of them had received a Government response—and the reports themselves were not available to right hon. and hon. Members wanting to take part in that debate.
Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, this time, a list of the reports will be published, and that those which have received a response from the Government will be identified? Can he confirm also that the reports themselves will be available to right hon. and hon. Members so that they may study them in advance and take part in the debate? I am aware that a number of the reports are embarrassing to the Government, but that is no excuse for not allowing right hon. and hon. Members to read them.

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I did not know of the situation last year, but I will look into the matter. The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point, and I will see what I can do to meet it.

Adjournment (Summer)

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I have a brief statement to make on behalf of Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker has asked me to remind hon. Members that, on the motion for the Adjournment of the House on Thursday 25 July, up to nine hon. Members may raise with Ministers subjects of their own choice. Applications should reach his office by 10 pm on Monday next. A ballot will he held on Tuesday morning and the result made known as soon as possible thereafter.

Property Services Agency

Mr. Bryan Gould: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You may recall that last Wednesday the Secretary of State for the Environment answered a private notice question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) about a leaked letter which referred to a dowry being offered to ease the privatisation of the Property Services Agency. In his reply, the Secretary of State said that the reference to the dowry meant
nothing other than the redundancy pay that we wish to protect".—[Official Report, 10 July 1991; Vol. 194, c. 950.]
Many people at the time thought that that answer lacked plausibility. Today's issue of the magazine New Builder reports authoritatively that Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte, which are advising the Government on the privatisation, had warned them that the PSA will have a negative value of at least £50 million and perhaps £100 million and that a dowry in excess of any basic redundancy costs would be required. The report states:
The claim contradicts the statement by Environment Secretary Michael Heseltine last week to the House of Commons that any cash dowry, for PSA services would seek to cover the cost of redundancies only.
The matter is of considerable importance, not just because of the 19,000 jobs at stake, but because any talk of a dowry, or, to put it in other terms, a sweetener, runs the risk of breaking European Community rules and providing a re-run of the Rover scandal.
The Secretary of State for the Environment must surely have been aware of the advice tendered by his professional advisers. He should now come to the House and make a statement and a full apology. What can you do, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to protect the House from being misled on matters of such importance?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): The hon. Gentleman will realise that that is not really a matter for the Chair. No doubt he will wish to raise it in other ways; and I am sure that those on the Government Front Bench will have heard what he said.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you know, money that is authorised for expenditure by Ministers must be covered by a money resolution in this House. To my recollection, no money resolution covering that kind of sweetener, bribe or dowry has been authorised. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I take an interest in money resolutions. It is therefore a matter of considerable concern and of accountability to the House if those promises are made which amount to expenditure by a Minister when authority for that has not been given by the House. Can you ensure that that point is examined?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I realise that the hon. Gentleman is a specialist on money resolutions. However, we are not considering a money resolution at the moment. I am sure that he will use his well-known ingenuity to raise the matter on another occasion.

Orders of the Day — Child Support Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered

New Clause 2

APPLICATION TO CROWN

'.—(1) The power of the Secretary of State to make regulations under section 13 requiring prescribed persons to furnish information may be exercised so as to require information to be furnished by persons employed in the service of the Crown or otherwise in the discharge of Crown functions.

(2) In such circumstances, and subject to such conditions, as may be prescribed, an inspector appointed under section 14 may enter any Crown premises for the purpose of exercising any powers conferred on him by that section.

(3) Where such an inspector duly enters any Crown premises for those purposes, section 14 shall apply in relation to persons employed in the service of the Crown or otherwise in the discharge of Crown functions as it applies in relation to other persons.

(4) Where a liable person is in the employment of the Crown, a deduction from earnings order may be made under section 30 in relation to that person; but in such a case subsection (8) of section 31 shall apply only in relation to the failure of that person to comply with any requirement imposed on him by regulations made under section 31:— [Mr. Jack.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Michael Jack): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause extends the provision in clause 13 to the supplying of information by Crown servants and gives the inspectors appointed under section 14 powers to enter Crown property in prescribed circumstances.

Dr. Norman A Godman: The Minister's comments were so brief that I did not have a chance to intervene. With regard to new clause 2(3), which refers to an inspector entering Crown premises, will the Minister confirm that the definition of Crown premises includes, among other things, military bases?
The Minister knows why I ask that question. He and I have had extensive correspondence about the position of absent fathers serving with Her Majesty's forces. The Minister will recall a case that was brought to my attention by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing); and I, too, have knowledge of such a case. I am anxious for the Minister to establish by way of the Official Report that the definition of Crown premises includes military bases within the United Kingdom. If that is the case, I shall view the new clause with considerable sympathy. There was a gap in regulations to protect children vis-à-vis absent fathers serving with the armed forces in the United Kingdom.
I go further and ask another question. Would a military base such as an Army camp or a ship moored to the quay at Rosyth or at Portsmouth for perhaps four weeks or so —I look to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for some protection on this matter—also fall within the confines of "Crown


premises"? What is the position of soldiers stationed in an Army camp in Germany? Would such a base fall within the definition of a United Kingdom posting? If that is the case, it surely means that those service men also fall within the terms of the new clause. Upon the Minister's answers rests my decision whether to call for a Division on the new clause.

Mr. Jack: The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) puts an onerous responsibility on my shoulders at this early stage in our proceedings. I shall do my best to respond in as much detail as I can. I have already done my best, through correspondence, to indicate to him the relationship between the way in which the Child Support Agency and its inspectors will operate and the way in which service personnel normally deal with questions of maintenance.
It is important to reflect for a moment on the nature of the inspector's work. The inspector is a seeker of information in circumstances in which normal methods of inquiry by telephone or letter are not providing the required result—in civilian terms, he would go to the pay office or personnel office by appointment. The hon. Gentleman will remember that we have carefully prescribed when an inspector may act. In terms of Crown property, it is certainly my understanding that he would be able to go into areas of military activity, but only to make the inquiries that I have mentioned.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned a hypothetical situation in relation to shipping. He will know that there is much law about shipping, which we may debate another time. The relevance of the hon. Gentleman's inquiry is that we are not likely to find, for example, naval pay officers on board ships in the way that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. As for inquiries about people abroad, that would more naturally be conducted by means of correspondence and inquiry. As I said by letter, commanding officers will be involved in assisting, as they do now in a co-operative manner, the seeking of information.

Dr. Godman: The Minister knows that the armed services Acts, one of which was passed recently, allow armed services Ministers to make Orders in Council which, among other things, can take cognisance of developments in other legislation—in this case, the Child Support Bill. Will the Minister speak to his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence to ensure that aspects of this legislation which impinge on the Armed Services Act 1991, where that Act itself deals with the care and protection of the children of armed forces personnel, are taken into consideration?

Mr. Jack: The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow has an unparalleled record in Standing Committee of rightly probing the way in which the measure affects our endeavours to seek maintenance from all absent parents with a particular responsibility, whatever they may do. I certainly would not try to double-guess the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. However, so that he is not left in doubt, I undertake to raise the matter in the way that he requested and to write to him and again highlight the developing situation.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3

JURISDICTION

'.—(1) A child support officer shall have jurisdiction to make a maintenance assessment with respect to a person who is—

(a) a person with care;
(b) an absent parent; or
(c) a qualifying child,
only if that person is habitually resident in the United Kingdom.

(2) Where the person with care is not an individual, subsection (1) shall have effect as if paragraph (a) were omitted.

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the cancellation of any maintenance assessment where—

(a) the person with care, absent parent or qualifying child with respect to whom it was made ceases to be habitually resident in the United Kingdom;
(b) in a case falling within subsection (2), the absent parent or qualifying child with respect to whom it was made ceases to be habitually resident in the United Kingdom; or
(c) in such circumstances as may be prescribed, a maintenance order of a prescribed kind is made with respect to any qualifying child with respect to whom the maintenance assessment was made.'. —[The Solicitor-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This new clause sets out the geographical framework for the jurisdiction of the Child Support Agency. There is to be a simple and easily understood test of jurisdiction —that is, that all parties to a maintenance application should be habitually resident in the United Kingdom. Habitual residence is a test that is already recognised within family law legislation. The agency's jurisdiction for the present will not cover cases where one or more of the parties is habitually resident outside the United Kingdom. Such cases will be, as now, for the courts to decide. The circumstances in such cases are likely to be complex and therefore more appropriate for the courts to exercise their discretionary powers. Also, it would be essential for the courts to deal with a case where it was necessary to invoke any of the international agreements and conventions which provide for the reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders. I commend the new clause——

Dr. Godman: Again I ask a brief question. I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that new clause 3(2) states:
When the person with care is not an individual, subsection (1) shall have effect as if paragraph (a) were omitted.
Does that mean that, when a child is taken into care to protect his interests against abuse or allegations of abuse or neglect, the social worker or even the foster parent, if such a child is placed in foster care, could not claim on behalf of that child?

The Solicitor-General: If I have understood the hon. Gentleman's question correctly, he reminds me that subsection (2) states:
Where the person with care is not an individual, subsection (1) shall have effect as if paragraph (a) were omitted.
Subsection (1) states:

" '.—(1) A child support officer shall have jurisdiction to make a maintenance assessment with respect to a person who is—
(a) a person with care".
Obviously, it would not be appropriate to make a maintenance assessment in respect of such a person if he is not an individual, since the object of maintenance assessments is that individuals should be assessed; consequently, that is to be omitted. I hope that that is clear.

Dr. Godman: I was concerned that a certain section in the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, where a child has been taken into care, places responsibility on the local authority to seek, where possible, maintenance from an absent parent. That is why I made my intervention.

The Solicitor-General: Under the new clause it would not be appropriate to seek maintenance from an absent parent through the Child Support Agency if the absent parent were not habitually resident within the jurisdiction.

Mr. Graham Allen: I am still not clear what the Government are trying to achieve in the new clause. Perhaps the Solicitor-General will be able to help me. Clearly, it is intended to provide that if a parent or child is not habitually resident here, the maintenance assessment cannot be made. If that is the case, perhaps the Solicitor-General will elaborate on what would happen in that eventuality. Ideally, a court maintenance order should then be made so that it can be sent abroad to be enforced. Perhaps the Government are trying to provide that in subsection 3(c), but it is not entirely clear from the wording. If subsection 3(c) is not designed to provide for that eventuality, what is its purpose? What does "habitually resident" mean, and who is to decide on the definition?

The Solicitor-General: "Habitually resident" means that, as a matter of habit or of normal lifestyle, those persons reside in this country. It is a term of art which means just what one would expect it to mean. If those persons live in France or Germany most of the time, that is where they are habitually resident. The case would then involve complexities with which it would be difficult for the Child Support Agency to deal, although the courts are accustomed to dealing with them. For the time being, therefore, we think it wise that those more complex cases should not be foisted upon the agency in its early years, but should be left to the courts to deal with because the courts are experienced. I hope that that makes the situation clear.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 4

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENTS AND CERTAIN COURT ORDERS AND RELATED MATTERS

'.—(1) Where an order of a kind prescribed for the purposes of this subsection is in force with respect to any qualifying child with respect to whom a maintenance assessment is made, the order—

(a) shall, so far as it relates to the making or securing of periodical payments, cease to have effect to such extent as may be determined in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State; or

(b) where the regulations so provide, shall, so far as it so relates, have effect subject to such modifications as may be so determined.

(2) Where an agreement of a kind prescribed for the purposes of this subsection is in force with respect to any qualifying child with respect to whom a maintenance assessment is made, the agreement—

(a) shall, so far as it relates to the making or securing of periodical payments, be unenforceable to such extent as may be determined in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State; or
(b) where the regulations so provide, shall, so far as it so relates, have effect subject to such modifications as may be so determined.

(3) Any regulations under this section may, in particular, make such provision with respect to—

(a) any case where any person with respect to whom an order or agreement of a kind prescribed for the purposes of subsection (1) or (2) has effect applies to the prescribed court, before the end of the prescribed period, for the order or agreement to be varied in the light of the maintenance assessment and of the provisions of this Act;
(b) the recovery of any arrears under the order or agreement which fell due before the coming into force of the maintenance assessment,
as the Secretary of State considers appropriate and may provide that, in prescribed circumstances, an application to any court which is made with respect to an order of a prescribed kind relating to the making or securing of periodical payments to or for the benefit of a child shall be treated by the court as an application for the order to be revoked.

(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for—

(a) notification to be given by the child support officer concerned to the prescribed person in any case where that officer considers that the making of a maintenance assessment has affected, or is likely to affect, any order of a kind prescribed for the purposes of this subsection;
(b) notification to be given by the prescribed person to the Secretary of State in any case where a court makes an order which it considers has affected, or is likely to affect, a maintenance assessment.

(5) Rules may be made under section 144 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (rules of procedure) requiring any person who, in prescribed circumstances, makes an application to a magistrates' court for a maintenance order to furnish the court with a statement in a prescribed form, and signed by a child support officer, as to whether or not, at the time when the statement is made, there is a maintenance assessment in force with respect to that person or the child concerned.

In this subsection—
maintenance order" means an order of a prescribed kind for the making or securing of periodical payments to or for the benefit of a child; and
prescribed" means prescribed by the rules.'—[The Solicitor-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient also to consider Government amendments Nos. 21 and 63.

The Solicitor-General: The new clause and the amendments allow us to provide for a smooth transition in matters relating to the amount of maintenance, its collection and enforcement where, in an individual case, an assessment by the agency supersedes a court order or vice versa.

Mr. Allen: I should like to put on record the Opposition's concern about several of the provisions, although that concern is more transparent in relation to the new clause. We are concerned about the many regulations that are attached to the Bill. Both in Committee and in the other place, reference was made to the fact that the Bill contains literally hundreds of regulatory powers. Perhaps the Solicitor-General will comment in a slightly broader sense rather than focusing solely on the new clause on the concept of extending legislative powers away from the Chamber to elsewhere, such as to Committees.

The Solicitor-General: I am happy to comment on that in general terms and do so almost entirely without embarrassment. In the increasing complexity of modern life, it would be foolish for the House to seek to scrutinise every detail of our secondary legislation in the detail with which we properly scrutinise primary legislation. Even if the Government were to show the self-restraint that all Governments purport to show until they come into office, we all know that the legislative burden on the House is heavy. Consequently, when one is dealing with complex and sophisticated matters, it is much more sensible for the House to deal with the principle of the Bill and then, as often happens—it is a wise thing to do if we are to get the provisions right—to put the details of the regulations out for consultation, with plenty of notice, to the interested agencies and specialist bodies that watch the provisions closely, and then to bring them before the House for approval. I have no difficulty in commending that mode, especially in an area such as this, where it is important that we get the detail right, as well as the principle.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 5

WELFARE OF CHILDREN: THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE

'.Where, in any case which falls to be dealt with under this Act, the Secretary of State or any child support officer is considering the exercise of any discretionary power conferred by this Act, he shall have regard to the welfare of any child likely to be affected by his decision.'.—[Mr. Jack.]

Brought up, and read the first time.

Mr. Jack: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 8.

Mr. Jack: My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor accepted an amendment that was tabled on the Bill's Third Reading in another place, but made it clear that further refinements would be necessary. New clause 5 is the result of those considerations of the refinements that might be made. In its revised form, it replaces the present clause 2.

Miss Joan Lestor: We welcome the new clause. There have been great discussions about the existing clause 2, which the new clause will replace with wording that is more applicable to the welfare of children.
Throughout our discussions on this Bill, certain comparisons were made with the Children Bill, which is soon to become law. The phrase used was that "the

interests of the child should be paramount". I should have preferred that definition to the wording of the new clause, which states that the officer
shall have regard to the welfare of any child likely to be affected by his decision.
Nevertheless, we welcome the new clause.
I am, however, anxious to ensure that the principle that the welfare of the child should be considered in the exercise of any discretionary power conferred on a child support officer should relate to the whole Bill. When we discuss clause 43 and the amendments to be tabled to it, we hope that the Government will accept our amendment No. 5, which seeks to change the current rigid level of benefit reduction into a more flexible discretionary power for the child support officers in the case of mothers who feel unable to co-operate with the child support officers. The Minister will have time to consider that point because we have not yet reached consideration of clause 43, but if the Government accept those provisions they would, indeed, be having due regard to the welfare of the child. Perhaps the Government will also reconsider some of the Bill's more punitive aspects because if they do not, as the Bill stands, the welfare of the child will be affected.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I echo the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) and ask the Minister whether he is sure that the wording of the new clause will suffice. Although I accept that it is an improvement, it still uses the phrase,
any child likely to be affected".
The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, on the executive committee of which I serve, together with the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), who gives distinguished service to the society and who will seek to move an amendment later, has drawn a relevant case to my attention. A citizens advice bureau on Merseyside has reported the case of a client being called into the local office of the Department of Social Security and asked to sign a form stating that he was the father of a child and responsible for its maintenance. The child in question was six years old, but the client was unaware of his existence. If the client is unaware of a child's existence, surely it is likely that the officers who are charged with administering the provisions might also be unaware of the child's existence.
In such circumstances, unless we have real assurances that great care will be exercised, not merely is an injustice likely to be done, but a great deal of harm and distress could be caused, especially to second marriages and subsequent families. Although the new clause is an improvement, I wonder whether the provisions are enough to ensure that unfortunate consequences do not arise in many cases.

Mr. Ian McCartney: I shall not keep the Under-Secretary of State too long because, as someone who supports new clause 5, I merely wish to clarify one point. The way in which the provisions work will become apparent only when the Department issues guidelines about the interpretation of "discretion" and the regulations. Will the Minister confirm that, when the new clause is passed, his Department will publish guidelines on how the officer is to interpret the discretionary powers? In the past, when discretionary powers have been given, it has been known for the Department to issue guidelines that undermine or restrict the way in which the discretionary power can be used.
Secondly, will the Department provide for welfare rights groups, women's groups, solicitors and others, as soon as practicable after the implementation of the Bill, a report on the types of discretion used in various agency offices so that we can build up a picture of what discretion is used and ensure that it is even-handed in relation to case work? If discretion is not applied properly and in the wide sense in which hon. Members on both sides of the House intend it to be used, will the Government take steps to ensure proper use of discretion so that no decision leaves a child or family with less income than it would have had?
For example, in a marginal case a mother may claim that violence could occur if the former partner was reintroduced into the relationship as a result of the agency asking her to disclose information about him. A former partner might seek access as a result of the involvement of the agency in discussions about the matter at hand. Will discretion be in favour of the woman in all circumstances so that the family's benefit is not reduced? She should be given the benefit of the doubt and the officer's discretion should not be curtailed in such a way as to mitigate against the child.

5 pm

Mr. Jack: The debate has been a short but important review of an important change which the Government introduced after the debate in another place.
The hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) talked about the importance—I think that she used the word "paramount"—of the interests of children. The terms of the new clause show how we have sought to extend the approach used where matters affecting the welfare of the child are clearly prescribed in the Bill to areas where those actions are not so prescribed. I hope that the hon. Lady takes it as a measure of our good intent that we did not resist the amendment in another place but have sought to widen it fully to reflect the importance of the welfare of the child.
The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) made some interesting and perceptive comments. I hope that he will be able to remain with us for the debates on subsequent clauses. I shall deal later with the way in which the measure will operate, especially with reference to second marriages. It will be incumbent on a child support officer to take into account the welfare of any child. The hon. Gentleman will already have made the bridge in his own mind. I shall deal with that a little later.
The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) made another important point about how we are to guide people. Child support is still a sensitive area. While we have conceded the point, we still have further thinking to do about the precise nature of guidance to child support officers on carrying out this sensitive work. I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that I will read carefully his words and ensure that they are properly taken into account.

Mr. McCartney: I am happy that the Minister has given a commitment that the Government are still considering the best way of drafting the advice. Will that consideration include giving organisations involved in looking after children or representing mothers an opportunity to comment on the advice before it is finally published?

Mr. Jack: If the hon. Gentleman had been with us in Committee, he would have heard me give the assurance on several occasions—I am happy to reiterate it—that in framing the regulations and in our other work on the Bill we shall continue to consult on a wide basis, especially with many of the organisations that have already written to us to make representations. Right hon. and hon. Members will be aware that we have met some of their requirements. We shall certainly consult.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 6

LIABILITY ORDERS: ENFORCEMENT THROUGHOUT UNITED KINGDOM

'.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for—

(a) any liability order made by a court in England and Wales; or
(b) any corresponding order made by a court in Northern Ireland,
to be enforced in Scotland as if it had been made by the sheriff.

(2) The power conferred on the Court of Session by section 32 of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971 (power of Court of Session to regulate civil procedure in the sheriff court) shall extend to making provision for the registration in the sheriff court for enforcement of any such order as is referred to in subsection (1).

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for, or in connection with, the enforcement in England and Wales of—

(a) any liability order made by the sheriff in Scotland; or
(b) any corresponding order made by a court in Northern Ireland,
as if it had been made by a magistrates' court in England and Wales.

(4) Regulations under subsection (3) may, in particular, make provision for the registration of any such order as is referred to in that subsection in connection with its enforcement in England and Wales.'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 6 introduces a technical provision which will allow enforcement of a liability order throughout the United Kingdom, regardless of where the order was made. It will thus avoid unnecessary and time-consuming reapplication should the liable person move between the separate jurisdictions of the courts of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The provision mirrors existing provisions in the Maintenance Orders Act 1950. It is clearly sensible and I commend it to the House.

Dr. Godman: Am I correct to assume that, when a case against a person who fails to meet his or her obligations reaches the sheriff court, that person could face a period of imprisonment? If so, has the Secretary of State for Social Security apprised the Solicitor-General of any discussions that he may have had with the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Home Secretary about the suggestion that I made in Committee that such periods of imprisonment should be inflicted on a person at the weekends as opposed to in a solid block of six weeks or whatever?

The Solicitor-General: I do not instantly know whether any such discussions have taken place. I shall find out during our proceedings this afternoon. We shall deal with imprisonment in later clauses.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 7

RIGHT OF AUDIENCE: SCOTLAND

'. In relation to any proceedings before the sheriff under any provision of this Act, the power conferred on the Court of Session by section 32 of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971 (power of Court of Session to regulate civil procedure in sheriff court) shall extend to the making of rules permitting a party to such proceedings, in such circumstances as may be specified in the rules, to be represented by a person who is neither an advocate nor a solicitor.'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 87 and 88.

The Solicitor-General: Clause 45 currently enables any person authorised by the Secretary of State to have a right of audience and a right to conduct litigation before a magistrates court in connection with any proceedings under the Bill. The House will recall that the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), said in Committee that we had given further thought to the Scottish position.
The new clause makes analogous provisions for Scotland in relation to civil proceedings before the sheriff, and amendments Nos. 87 and 88 make the necessary consequential amendments to the provisions in clause 53.
In Scotland civil proceedings in the sheriff court are regulated by court procedural rules made under section 32 of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971. Such rules, after appropriate consultation and discussion, are formulated by an independent body known as the Sheriff Court Rules Council and, if approved, are ultimately made by the Court of Session. The new clause extends that power to allow parties to specified civil proceedings in the sheriff court to be represented by a lay person. The new clause is clearly sensible and I commend it to the House.

Dr. Godman: I have one anxiety about new clause 7, which refers specifically to section 32 of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971. That section refers to the power of the Court of Session to regulate civil procedures. It begins by stating:
Subject to the provisions of this section, the Court of Session may by act of sederunt regulate and prescribe the procedure and practice to be followed in any civil proceedings".
That refers to an ordinance which allows the Court of Session to regulate its procedures by way of an Act dating back to 1540.
Sheriffs in Scotland are willing to deal in their courts with professionals who are not solicitors and advocates in, for example, proof cases brought from a children's panel. The sheriff will meet social workers and others in his or her court, and I see no difficulty arising about that.
The new clause refers to people being

represented by a person who is neither an advocate nor a solicitor.
I hope that that would not prevent such a person, when appearing in the sheriff court, from applying for legal aid. There will be cases involving children and their carers in which a non-professional would not be appropriate and an advocate would need to be employed. I am anxious that the Legal Aid Board in Scotland does not refuse such applications because of the wording of the new clause—[Interruption.] I hope that Conservative Members will take this seriously because it is an important matter. I want an assurance that the Legal Aid Board will not try to save money because of the wording of the new clause which, apart from that concern, I regard as a reasonable provision.

The Solicitor-General: I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's remarks. He pointed out that some provisions are ancient. A happier feature of a civilised society is that provisions that have been standing since, say, 1540 have been so standing because they were sensible even then and have stood the test of time.
The hon. Gentleman's main question referred to what the Legal Aid Board might or might not do in relation to certain applications. He will know that, in certain circumstances, legal aid in the form, for example, of advice by way of representation—for somebody who might need representation because he or she had failed to comply with a liability order or something of the sort—might be forthcoming from the board or the court. It would not be wise for me to give undertakings off the cuff, but I promise to look into what the hon. Gentleman said and write to him with an explanation of the likely practicalities.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1

SAFEGUARDERS

'.— (1) In Scotland, if a child applies to the Secretary of State for a maintenance assessment to be made with respect to him, the local authority may, if it think fit, appoint a person ("the safeguarder") to represent the child in respect of such an application and any related matters.

(2) It shall be the duty of any safeguarder appointed under this section to promote the interests of the child concerned.

(3) In this section, "local authority" means a regional or islands council.'.—[Dr. Godman.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Dr. Godman: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
My new clause is titled "Safeguarders," a term with which the Solicitor-General will be familiar. While my clause may be concerned with a very small number of children, its provisions are important. I have no doubt that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will reject it, but that he will, as always, give me a sympathetic hearing and be courteous in that rejection.
Children over 12 will have the right under the Bill to apply for maintenance on their own behalf. A provision to that effect was introduced in Committee. That provision has been received positively in Scotland by professionals with whom I have spoken following the conclusion of the Committee stage.
5.15 pm
The majority of children, many of whom will be the sons and daughters of one-parent families, will have their maintenance applications pursued by their mothers and in a few cases it will be the fathers. Children in the care of local authorities will have their interests defended and promoted by social workers in local social work departments or, in England, social services departments.
While my new clause refers to "safeguarders," the term "advocate" or "representative" would equally have sufficed. I have chosen "safeguarders" because the word is familiar in Scotland, as we have safeguarders working with children at children's hearings and on parental rights issues. Indeed, my personal view is that they are under-used in Scotland. It may be possible for them to carry out the functions under this legislation, but I suggest that safeguarders—or advocates or representatives—should be established to secure or promote the best interests of the small number of children to whom I have referred.
The concept of an advocate on a child's behalf was raised by the recent child care law review in Scotland. There is substantial support for such posts in child care legislation, and such persons would be appropriate for the functions that are likely to arise under the Bill.
Children of 12 or over in Scotland have the right to instruct solicitors, though I confess to not knowing the position south of the border. Such a child should have support and guidance because solicitors are not always the best professionals to deal with children, particularly children who are shy and inarticulate. Some solicitors use what some of us regard as pedantic and stilted English and are not always the best professionals to deal with children. I imagine that as I speak, I am losing votes hand over fist with the lawyers in my constituency.
It is important that I raise issues of this kind because there are few Scots in the House today. I refer in my new clause to a local authority meaning
a regional or islands council".
Islands councils have been in the news recently in another context. That apart, they contain a vast body of expertise in their social works departments in dealing with children's issues. That is why the regional or islands all-purpose authority would be the most appropriate body to establish a safeguarder for a child in that situation. But hon. Members may prefer an independent body—perhaps the Child Support Agency itself—to provide such assistance to a child aged 12 or over seeking to make an application.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Will the hon. Gentleman explain precisely who are the guardians of such children aged 12 or over in Scotland? Are they solicitors, social workers and so on? I should have thought that employees of the Child Support Agency would be the best people to support such children and guide them in making claims on their own behalf.

Dr. Godman: I have already said that the agency could provide such assistance and counselling for those young people. This is a probing new clause and I know that it will not be accepted. Safeguarders are often employed by social work departments and they do not necessarily have masses of academic qualifications. They are rarely, if ever, lawyers but usually come from within the community, as do members of the panels at the children's hearings. They have some training, some knowledge and some experience of protecting children's interests.
There seems to be a case for such an advocate, representative or safeguarder in those few cases that will involve children aged 12 or more who wish to make such an application. I make no apology for introducing the new clause on behalf of what might be only a handful of young people each year. I consider it right and proper to seek from the Minister an explanation of how he intends to assist young people when they make those applications.

Mr. Jack: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) for tabling the amendment. I was moved by his suggestion and I reflected, in all genuineness, on what he said about that subject in the Standing Committee. I was pleased that he again acknowledged the fact that the Bill properly recognises a special Scottish dimension in the way children and the law interact. In sympathising particularly with his concern for, albeit, a small but important group of children, I am glad that he has brought the issue before us again.
The hon. Gentleman places the weight of his argument on giving further responsibility to local government. Many local authorities feel that they are already carrying a heavy burden of responsibility and I am not sure whether they would respond positively to an additional job. The hon. Gentleman alluded to the provisions of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, which enables a child to be represented by a local authority social worker at a children's hearing. The House should bear in mind the fact that the Bill does not deal with considerations that arise in a children's hearing, but with essentially private actions seeking maintenance from an absent parent. Local authorities are not the best or most appropriate bodies to act in those circumstances.
I wish to put two initiatives to the hon. Gentleman, which I hope will persuade him of our good intentions. I hope that he will then either withdraw the new clause or not press it to a Division. First, I intend to provide publicity and guidance to the advice agencies and to local authorities in Scotland ensuring that they are aware of the facility for children over the age of 12 years to apply to the agency for maintenance in circumstances where the caring parent of the child has chosen not to seek a maintenance assessment. Information and advice are part of the key to the problem outlined by the hon. Gentleman. Secondly —I hope that this suggestion will make the hon. Gentleman a happy man—I shall ensure that agency staff in Scotland will be given special training to enable them to give sympathetic advice and assistance to any children applying to the agency. The agency itself will, to borrow the hon. Gentleman's word, act as "safeguarder" for the child.
I also assure the hon. Gentleman that there is, of course, nothing in the Bill which would prevent the child from bringing along a responsible adult when he approaches the agency, and the guidance that we shall issue to the advice agencies will make that clear.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that I have tried to respond as sympathetically and fully as possible to his real and human points.

Dr. Godman: On the basis of the assurances that the Minister has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 8

CHILD SUPPORT INSPECTORS

`.—(1) Her Majesty may appoint inspectors, to be called child support inspectors, to monitor the exercise of the powers and duties conferred and imposed by this Act.

(2) The child support inspectors shall provide an annual report to the Secretary of State giving an account of the exercise and performance of the powers and duties conferred and imposed by this Act.

(3) The Secretary of State shall cause a copy of that report to be laid before each House of Parliament .' .—[Miss Emma Nicholson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Miss Emma Nicholson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is in three parts. First, it proposes that Her Majesty appoint child support inspectors to play a careful monitoring role over the Child Support Agency as it carries out its important tasks. Secondly, the new clause suggests that the child support inspectors should present an annual report to the Secretary of State, giving an account of the exercise and performance of the powers and duties conferred. Thirdly, it suggests that the Secretary of State, in turn, should inform Parliament by placing a copy of that report before the House.
The Government have already listened sympathetically to the point because I discussed it on an earlier amendment in Committee. I was unable to do so fully because, owing to an over-run—an eloquency on the part of the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen)—on the last day or the Committee proceedings, we seemed to run into injury time. I therefore sought leave to withdraw my amendment so that it could be debated more fully on the Floor of the House as I believe that it deals with an important point.
In this new era of agencies, which I heartily support, we need to look carefully at how Parliament monitors those agencies. In questions to the Leader of the House earlier today, hon. Members on both sides asked for old-fashioned mechanisms to be put in place. They are already in place to monitor departmental expenditure and activities. I call them old-fashioned because, although they are dear to the heart of Parliament, they are not the most effective way to deal with the new agency world, which calls for newer monitoring mechanisms such as the one suggested in new clause 8.
Although my hon. Friend the Minister may at first respond by saying that sufficient monitoring bodies already exist, there is nothing specific to guide and monitor the work of agencies, or to report to Parliament. I remind my hon. Friend that the ombudsman can take up only individual cases of maladministration and cannot monitor the whole operation of an agency. Although parliamentary Select Committees have many duties and responsibilities under their current tasks, by their very nature they could not carry out the necessary detailed scrutiny of everyday operations. I listened carefully to the debate on new clause 1 and, in many respects, I am suggesting a larger reflection of the meaning behind that new clause.
Both sides of the House have recognised the Government's determination to put children first. There is broad agreement behind the principle of the Bill, which is that both parents should continue to be financially responsible for their children. None the less, as many of us have said and as the Minister has been at the forefront in saying, the relationships with which the Bill deals are

among the most intimate, sensitive and difficult that families and friends experience—those between the child and the parent.
I support the principle behind the Bill so strongly because a former staff member of mine was a child of a single parent—his father ran away when he was only 11—and he told me on several occasions that his very identity had felt threatened throughout his childhood because his father never gave his mother a halfpenny. He believed that that simple transaction—providing financial support, however modest—would have strengthened his identity. He is a fine young man, well on the way to receiving his degree, and it was astonishing to see how strongly and powerfully he held that view.
As a result of that experience, I asked other youngsters with whom I have worked, and many of those on youth initiative schemes, how they felt—and their view was just the same. Such sensitive relationships may be buttressed by what appears to be a mercenary transaction. It may seem odd to think of money being linked with family relationships. It is not relevant in happy families, but in unhappy families money acts as a sort of link and should not be discarded as one medium to identify personal need in terms of personality and practical support.
5.30 pm
On 13 June, the Minister said that he would be monitoring the operation of the Child Support Agency, the agent's chief executive would monitor actions taken and the chief child support officer would be required to produce a report. As I said then, that surely means merely that someone in charge is taking a careful and professional look at what he or she is carrying out. That is self-monitoring—a good professional discipline, presumably done on good, professional guidelines, with the individual doing his or her best to reach the standards that Parliament has laid down in the Bill. It is what one can only describe as vertical monitoring by those who will hold responsibility for the work that they are carrying out, rather than external monitoring by an organisation which is not responsible for the initial actions.
My new clause provides for what I can only describe as real monitoring which, if there were no agency, might be carried out by individual Members of Parliament tabling parliamentary questions to Ministers. I do not believe that such a method would be relevant under the new scheme, but my proposal would be relevant. I know that my proposal is something of an innovation, but that should surely not rule it out of court. My proposal is a departure from normal practice in maintenance law and social security matters, but that should commend it to the House. I have been appalled at the slack standards of some social services departments which have hit the headlines recently. The actions of some departmental staff have been to the detriment of the children in their care and I sincerely believe that we should look at new ways of ensuring that best practice is carried out throughout the United Kingdom.
We have a social services inspectorate and Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools. It is surely even more necessary to have an inspectorate in a sphere where there are difficult interactions between different authorities. We know how difficult it is in the modern world for different authorities and departments to mesh well for the good of the client within reasonable time constraints. In this instance the authorities involved are the courts, the


Department of Social Security and the Child Support Agency—a tripartite possibility for chaos, slackness and slowness. Although it offers great potential for rapid interaction and rapid movement, it has built-in potential weaknesses.
On 11 June, the Minister referred to the concern expressed in another place, when the Bill was debated, about the number of regulations in the Bill. He said that the Lord Chancellor had
counselled the other place that we would require flexibility. By devising the powers of the Bill in the form of regulations, we should have the opportunity to make changes in the future, if that became necessary in the light of experience." —[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 11 June 1990; c. 15.]
If the Minister cannot accept the new clause, perhaps he will reassure me that he will continue to look carefully at the issue and possibly introduce a regulatory change if my worries later prove justified. In another place, the Lord Chancellor himself said that the
controlled use of regulations allows a valuable flexibility within the scheme…and most importantly, any unfairness which is uncovered in the operation of the system can be rectified."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 February 1991, Vol. 526, c. 778.]
The existence of an external and independent monitoring body would provide an excellent mechanism for bringing to light any unfairness in the practical operation of the regulation. We would be setting up a permanent watchdog to safeguard the interests of children and parents in vulnerable positions. A substantial proportion of those served by the Child Support Agency will also be benefit claimants. Their needs are critical and sensitive, and sometimes difficult to look after. An external monitoring organisation would solve all the difficulties that I have identified, and I commend the new clause to the Minister.

Mr. Allen: As the Bill comes from Committee back to the Chamber and then goes to the Lords, it is incumbent on us to make one or two proposals. While reluctantly accepting the Bill, we must try to make the best of a bad job. I hope that the Government will accept that it is important that when the Bill moves on from Report we should make some progress on the issue of monitoring.
The Government have been free with the use of the phrase "monitoring developments" and I believe that the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) has done the House a great service in introducing the new clause, which the Opposition certainly support. As it stands, the Bill has no proposals for effective monitoring by this place, either through an annual report or, as the hon. Lady said, through independent monitoring of the agency. Many of us are concerned about the way in which the new Benefits Agency has worked.
Today I received a letter—it had taken six weeks for the Benefit Agency to answer an initial inquiry. The letter was not answered by the chief executive, but someone in the department. Whatever faults the old system of questions may have had, at least one received a response from the Secretary of State, nominal or not. We should be careful not to slip into a system in which there is no accountability and no monitoring of the new agency. The new clause provides an ideal opportunity for doing so.
I should like the Minister to comment on a possible precedent. I was fortunate enough to be a member of the

Public Accounts Committee. We considered the issue of monitoring the liable relative office's work. We produced a report which recommended ensuring that
the pressure on offices to achieve a substantial increase in maintenance recoveries does not lead to undue pressure being put on lone parents to co-operate".
The Committee's underlying recommendation was that it did not want liable relative officers to feel that they were on the front line, and had to knock work pressures across the counter to their clients.
As the Public Accounts Committee made such a recommendation to the Department and the Treasury, it would be helpful to know whether such monitoring is taking place. If there has been a serious response to that recommendation, we have a base for what the hon. Lady has suggested in terms of effective monitoring when we move from liable relative work to child support work.
There are a number of other specific issues that the Minister may wish to comment on so that we can answer some of the key questions as the Child Support Bill unfolds, and ensure that it is monitored and kept up to standard. How effective is the agency in delivering maintenance to caring parents? We need a sort of mission statement. What is the take-up of the scheme? We need to be able to move quickly to correct problems in sectors where we feel that the take-up is not of an appropriate rate. Is the agency cost effective? A recent oral answer suggested that the agency was expected to
reduce the taxpayer's expenditure on benefit by an additional £400 million".—[Official Report, 20 May 1991 Vol. 191, c. 628.]
What information will exist as to whether those savings have been made? How will such savings be redeployed to improve provision for lone parents? Will we have information on the percentage of expenditure on administration compared with how much is recovered from absent parents? We should not end up with the same problems that we have discovered with the social fund. Whatever the arguments about its merits, let us ensure that the administrative costs of the agency are kept within reasonable bounds.
Will we have information on how confidentiality is protected for the caring parent? What monitoring will there be on the effect of the obligation to co-operate? My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) will also refer to that issue later.
Invariably, the work of the liable relative officer—and, in future, that of the child support officer—is of a high standard. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are free in their compliments on the work of those officers. However, in Committee we referred at great length to the fact that there are one or two rotten apples in the barrel. Those officers give clients a hard time—perhaps because they are under pressure, stressed by conditions or lack of pay or case hardened. The training of such officers will therefore be absolutely essential. I hope that the Minister can tell us how that training will be conducted and, above all, how the work of officers will be monitored.
The hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West has advocated either independent monitoring outside the House or full accountability to the House via a report from the Child Support Agency. If the latter option is adopted we will be able to raise cases directly with the Minister and assist him, however reluctantly, to make the legislation work better.

Mr. Jack: There has been an interesting debate and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) on her proper persistence in asking us to reconsider this matter. I hope that my hon. Friend will not think me churlish if I refer first to some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen).
The hon. Gentleman said that the Opposition reluctantly accepted the Bill. I hope that that does not suggest that his warm and friendly attitude to the Bill, as demonstrated on Second Reading and in Committee, has been diminished. On previous occasions he has told us that he welcomes the broad principles of the Bill and I hope that that still stands because that general support has been greatly welcomed by the Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West demonstrated, with her usual eloquence, the importance that she attaches to the accountability and monitoring of, and the reporting on, the activities of the Child Support Agency. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State shares her views about the effective operation of the agency. He agrees with my hon. Friend that the agency must be constructed in such a way that it can do the job that the Bill empowers and, more important, requires it to do.
I have thought hard about the suggestions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West, but we have what can be termed a mechanical problem. Some of the people that my hon. Friend might seek to question would not be able to come to the House in the way in which my hon. Friend envisaged. My hon. Friend will be aware that Select Committees and the Public Accounts Committee could summon those people for examination, which might be the proper way to provide such monitoring. The one person who can be examined in this Chamber, however, is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It is through him that the system of accountability will be principally operated. My hon. Friend does not need to be reminded of the number of parliamentary ways in which that could be done.

Miss Emma Nicholson: It is not my contention that the House should grill specialists and professionals. I do not believe that Parliament is the appropriate mechanism by which to manage the affairs of outside agencies, departments or elected services. The Government should be at arms length from practical management. All I am seeking is that a report from an external monitoring agency should be put before the House. I am not suggesting we should grill the professionals—that is more in line with the Opposition's philosophy of hands-on management, which leads to a degradation of standards. I want the Government to set those standards and to give us an effective way in which to monitor them.

Mr. Jack: I am grateful for that clarification. I am sure that the chief executive of the Child Support Agency and the chief child support officer will breathe a sigh of relief that they will not be so grilled. The Select Committees and the Public Accounts Committee have the right to invite such persons to be examined, but it is for those Committees to decide whether to act accordingly.
The chief child support officer will be accountable to the Secretary of State and the chief executive of the Child Support Agency for his work. He will also have to produce

an annual report for the Secretary of State. In answer to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North, that report will deal with some of the adjudicatory functions of that agency. The chief child support officer's report will be placed in the public purview in the Library of the House, if in no other place.

Mr. McCartney: I believe that the proposals of the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) do not differ greatly from those operated by the Audit Commission in terms of internal audits which are independent of local authority departments. Local authorities are required to appoint a permanent audit commission, independent of themselves, within the confines of their authorities. That independent authority puts forward proposals on behalf of the users of authority services and it promotes good management practice, value for money and provides an assessment of whether the proper functions of an authority are operating.
Given that the Government have introduced such a concept in local government, they should accept something similar in terms of the Child Support Agency. The Government have already said that they intend to spend a great deal of money on monitoring that agency. Why not have independent monitoring so that assessments can be made similar to those provided successfully by the independent auditors for local authorities?

Mr. Jack: I am bound to say that one of the best monitors of the performance of the Child Support Agency will be the parents with care. Some of them will receive maintenance for the first time and if there are any problems they will be the first ones to comment on them.
It is important to appreciate that the Child Support Agency, in common with the Benefits Agency and Contributions Agency, will have to publish a business plan. That public document will make their performance targets abundantly clear. The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) should study that business plan because it will reveal the type of information against which the performance of the Child Support Agency and that of the others can be compared. Those business plans can be the subject of scrutiny by Select Committees and the Public Accounts Committee.
The business plan will be the responsibility of the chief executive of the Child Support Agency. Anyone with certain responsibilities is bound to want to carry them out properly. However, some of today's comments may undermine the absolute integrity of the people who will be responsible for running the agencies. That will be their best defence. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West will see that the accountability of the chief child support officer and the chief executive —through the production of their reports—to this House will lead to a great deal of monitoring, interaction and control to ensure that the agency delivers that which it is supposed to do.
Ministers who are responsible for policy will take seriously the points that my hon. Friend has put to us. They will watch how the agency evolves. The agency will be able to benefit from what has been learnt by other agencies that already are improving the delivery of social security to those who need it.

Miss Emma Nicholson: I have listened with care to the Minister's speech and I am grateful to him for his thoughtful response. He thinks deeply about the points


that we put to him and takes his responsibilities seriously. Nevertheless, I am not sure that the purpose of the new clause has been fully understood.
The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) referred to local government audits. It was an excellent and apposite point. In our excellent and commendable reforms of the national health service we have stressed the importance of the Government-inspired medical audits. However, whatever the professionals may do to improve the standards that we in Parliament, on behalf of the public, demand of them, they are only human and can fall below their own high standards. The best way to maintain those standards is for other professionals to monitor them.
I accept that I have lost the argument today. Perhaps I am too far ahead in time in suggesting that provision should be made for monitoring the professionals. At some time, however, we shall have to address the external monitoring of agencies by professional monitoring bodies. That would relieve Secretaries of State of the onerous and difficult task of creating a professional monitoring body within their own Departments. That is not, I believe, a duty that they should have to perform. It is for the Government to set standards and to ask professionals to monitor them and report back.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 8, in page 1, line 16, leave out clause 2–[Mr. Jack.]

Clause 3

MEANING OF CERTAIN TERMS USED IN THIS ACT

Amendment made: No. 78, in page 2, leave out lines 16 and 17. —[Mr. Jack.]

Clause 4

CHILD SUPPORT MAINTENANCE

Amendments made: No. 9, in page 2, line 32, leave out subsection (2).

No. 10, in page 3, line 2, leave out from 'can' to 'to', in line 4, and insert
`comply with such regulations as may be made by the Secretary of State with a view to the Secretary of State or the child support officer being provided with the information which is required-'.

No. 11, in page 3, line 8, leave out 'child support maintenance' and insert 'amount'.

No 12, in page 3, line 9, leave out from `parent' to end of line 12.

No. 79, in page 3, line 25, at end insert—
`( ) No application may be made under this section if there is in force with respect to the person with care and absent parent in question a maintenance assessment made in response to an application under section 6.'. —[Mr. Jack.]

Clause 6

APPLICATIONS BY THOSE RECEIVING BENEFIT

Amendments made: No. 13, in page 3, line 43, after '(b)', insert 'she'.

No. 14, in page 4, line 10, leave out 'That authorisation' and insert
'The authorisation mentioned in subsection (1)'.

No. 15, in page 4, line 28, after 'to', insert
'the Secretary of State or'

No. 16, in page 5, line 4, at end insert—
'(14) The fact that a maintenance assessment is in force with respect to a person with care shall not prevent the making of a new maintenance assessment with respect to her in response to an application under this section.'. —[Mr. Jack.]

Clause 7

RIGHT OF CHILD IN SCOTLAND TO APPLY FOR ASSESSMENT

Amendments made: No. 80, in page 5, line 13, at end insert—
'(1A) An application made under subsection (1) shall authorise the Secretary of State to make a maintenance assessment with respect to any other children of the absent parent who are qualifying children in the care of the same person as the child making the application.'.

No. 17, in page 5, line 29, leave out from 'can' to 'to', in line 31, and insert
'comply with such regulations as may be made by the Secretary of State with a view to the Secretary of State or the child support officer being provided with the information which is required-'.

No. 18, in page 5, line 35, leave out 'child support maintenance' and insert 'amount'.

No. 19, in page 5, line 36, leave out from 'parent' to end of line 39.

No. 81, in page 5, line 42, after 'section', insert—
'(5A) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to comply with any request made under subsection (5)'. —[Mr. Jack.]

Clause 8

ROLE OF THE COURTS WITH RESPECT TO MAINTENANCE FOR CHILDREN

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment No. 20, in page 6, line 16, at end insert—
'( ) The Lord Chancellor or in relation to Scotland the Lord Advocate may by order provide that, in such circumstances as may be specified by the order, this section shall not prevent a court from exercising any power which it has to make a maintenance order in relation to a child if—

(a) a written agreement (whether or not enforceable) provides for the making, or securing, by an absent parent of the child of periodical payments to or for the benefit of the child; and
(b) the maintenance order which the court makes is, in all material respects, in the same terms as that agreement.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 93, 94, 45, 46, 95 and 96.

The Solicitor-General: These amendments relate to the collection and enforcement powers of the Child Support Agency. They will allow us the alternatives of continuing to make child maintenance agreements effective either through the courts, as consent orders, or through the new agency's collection and enforcement powers. They will also allow the agency, when resources are available, to collect and enforce any other form of child maintenance or spousal maintenance where the agency is collecting related child maintenance.
Once the agency is up and running, it may be wise for it to take on these wider and more comprehensive duties. The amendment provides us with the power to choose how far and how fast we should go. I commend the amendment to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I beg to move amendment No. 100, in page 6, line 41, leave out from 'him' to end of line 45 and insert
'; or—

(b) no such allowance is paid but he is disabled,'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider the following: Amendment No. 98, in page 6, line 45, at end insert—
'(d) he is registered as disabled in a register maintained under Schedule 2, paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 2 to the Children Act 1989.'.
Government amendment No. 101.
Amendment No. 99, in clause 50, page 34, line 42, at end insert—
'"registered as disabled" has the same meaning as in the Children Act 1989.'.

Mr. Scott: All these amendments seek to address the same problem. I hope that I can persuade the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) that there is so little between us that she can accept the Government's approach.
Government amendments Nos. 100 and 101 seek to expand the possible range of cases where courts can consider top-up awards of maintenance for the extra costs of caring for a disabled child. Following very careful consideration of all the views expressed on the most appropriate way of continuing to provide access to extra maintenance for a disabled child, the Government have provided in this clause for courts to be able to consider top-up awards.
When the amendment was discussed in Committee, my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General explained that the Government believed that this was the best way to protect the interests of the child. The services of the Child Support Agency and the standard formula would be available, as for other children, for ordinary expenses, but the courts would be able to consider applications for extra maintenance, looking at the circumstances of each case and making awards tailored to those circumstances.
Our original path in seeking to achieve that aim was to choose payment of the disability living allowance for the child, or the registration of the child as blind, as the two definitions of cases where courts would be able to make these awards. We did that because we believed initially that it provided a clear and easily understood criterion that would make it clear both to parents and to courts who could apply.
Representations were made to us and there 'were discussions about it in Committee. Amendments were also tabled by the hon. Member for Eccles. It was said that this was too narrow a definition to deal with the generality of children with disabilities of one sort or another. I was particularly concerned about two groups: children under the age of five who would be unable to qualify for the mobility component of the disabilty living allowance and those who are deaf or who cannot speak. We believe that our previous approach would have excluded some children

who are genuinely disabled to whom the courts currently can consider making the extra maintenance award. We should have been narrowing rather than expanding the present provision.
We are looking at circumstances in which the courts should be able to consider whether and how much maintenance the absent parent should pay because the child is disabled. The courts can consider this issue, alongside others, when making maintenance awards. The payment of the disability living allowance provides a convenient signpost, but because its role is different it is possible that some cases in addition to the registered blind—some of which I have already mentioned—should be brought within the definition. It will be possible, therefore, to apply to the courts to consider top-up awards for any child for whom the disability living allowance is paid, or who is blind, deaf, without speech or substantially and permanently handicappped.
I hope that I can persuade the hon. Member for Eccles that this aproach is similar to the one that she adopted in her amendments, but I believe that our approach is better, for one reason. Our amendments focus directly on the children and provide that there is no hurdle that a parent has to overcome. The Children Act 1989, which the hon. Lady understandably used as her vehicle, places a duty on local authorities to set up a register for their area. That is intended not as a qualifying stage for access to services but as a planning tool for local authorities, to help them to make decisions about the provision of services. Parents can choose absolutely freely whether or not their child should be registered. Some parents—no doubt for perfectly valid reasons—may choose not to do so. Our approach—to include these definitions in the amendments —is what is needed. Therefore, I hope the hon. Lady will feel able——

Miss Emma Nicholson: Do the words "mental disorder" cover mental handicap and psychiatric concerns? Is it a portmanteau phrase covering both? I should hate to see a mentally handicapped child not specifically identified in the Bill

Mr. Scott: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. I reassure her that it is the compendium definition.
I hope that I have convinced the House that we have listened carefully to the representations that have been made to us and that we have responded to them with sympathy and in the most practical manner.

6 pm

Miss Lestor: I welcome the Government's recognition of the need for consistency in the definition of disabled children. With the explanations that the Minister has given, there is now consistency between the Child Support Bill and the Children Act 1989. The difficulty that we want to discuss is that the Bill does not meet all the requirements of the Children Act because children with disabilities will not be treated in the same way as all other children. Representations about that have been made by the Spastics Society, Barnardos and hon. Members concerned, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris).
I accept that the Government's amendments are slightly better than mine because I understand that many parents may not wish to put their disabled child on a register for disabled people. There was never any real logic behind


concentrating on the receipt of disabled living allowance or being registered blind as a passport to the courts for the top-up of the costs of disability. Therefore, by incorporating the much broader definition of disability, children not in receipt of benefits will be included. It was made clear in Committee that that is particularly relevant for deaf children. However, it is a double-edged sword. I welcome the inclusion of a broader definition, but only if it does not mean that more disabled children and their families will be forced to use the courts to gain an appropriate level of maintenance.
The Minister is right to say that I have looked constantly at the Children Act because it has provided a springboard when considering children. Even with the concession that has been made, the Child Support Bill contradicts the principle of the Children Act which is that children should be treated as children first, whatever their circumstances or disabilities. By pushing disabled children into the courts for top-up benefits we are not treating all children alike. The Children Act also stated that, because delays in the courts are likely to prejudice the welfare of the child, that should be avoided. I fear that delays prejudicial to the welfare of children with disabilities will inevitably arise under the proposed maintenance arrangements. Therefore, although I have said that I welcome the definition and the concession, it is now more important than ever that the courts are reformed—I accept that that is not part of this Bill, but the plea for family courts has been made over and over again—or that child support officers should be given discretionary powers to deal with costs related to disability. It would still be possible to incorporate an element to cover a proportion of disability costs in the formula.
If the new system is to work, the Child Support Agency must be given powers beyond those already suggested in the Bill. To ensure the welfare of the child we must use fully the discretionary powers in new clause 5 to which I referred earlier. The child support officers should have discretionary powers to assess the extra costs of disability for maintenance purposes.
Unless those suggestions are taken on board, even with the changes that the Government have announced, the pressure on the courts is unlikely to be reduced and children with disabilities will still be subjected to an unreliable and unjust system that contradicts the principle in the Children Act that all children should be treated the same.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Like other members of the Committee that considered this Bill, I have received letters from Barnardos and other organisations that look after handicapped children and have done so for 100 years or more. I have read the letters carefully and studied the points made. Like other hon. Members, I was concerned that somehow the particular needs of disabled children had not been identified clearly enough in the Bill.
However, I am comfortable with the Minister's initial proposals. I say "initial" because I feel confident that he will take care to scrutinise the workings of what I believe will be the new Act since his service and work for the disabled community throughout the United Kingdom has been outstanding. I have considerable knowledge of that

since I am involved with a number of organisations for disabled children and I know of the exceptionally high regard in which he is held.
Despite the known concern and knowledge of the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor), I should have been worried had we gone down the route of the disabled register. I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to forget the validity of the registers in the eyes of disabled people. People who are disadvantaged do not wish to be identified as such and I believe sincerely that asking people with a disability to identify themselves and put their names down, thus opening themselves up to self-denigration and external physical harassment, is not a humanitarian way to behave. In my constituency there is a tragic case of parents with a Tay Sachs child and two young men were arrested for physical harassment of those parents. Therefore, identification of disability sometimes attracts a wretched and non-humanitarian response.
I accept that, because we do not have that complete identification, there may be some gaps. That is why the new proposals will need careful scrutiny. I know also that occasionally there will be delays in courts of law. However, I feel confident that the Bill has been thought through carefully and that the essence of care for children is its hallmark. I am confident that my hon. Friend the Minister's amendments will stand the test of time. I know that my hon. Friend will look at them and monitor them throughout and alter them by regulation if that should prove necessary.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome amendment No. 101. I share a little of the concern about delays in tribunals or courts which was expressed by the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor). I know that the Minister will keep that in mind. Perhaps he will nudge the Law Officer into moving towards reform of the court system so that we can have the family courts for which some of us have been asking for some time.
The Minister knows of my concern in these matters. Do the words "mental disorder" and the definition that he gave include autistic children?

Mr. Scott: I shall respond to the interventions from the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor), my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) and the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). I cannot accept that by going down the route that we have chosen and enabling disabled children to have standard maintenance as well as maintenance related to their disability we will be disadvantaging them or their families. The top-up for which the court will be responsible will take total account of the expenses related to the disability and, in a way, will provide an off-the-peg service in meeting those needs. I do not believe that it would be appropriate for an administrative body to apply the discretion that is needed and which most of the voluntary organisations want. I accept that Barnardos and Mencap have argued for including the cost of disability within the maintenance requirement, but the Childrens Society, Gingerbread, the Law Society, the National Council of One-Parent Families, the Social Security Advisory Committee, the Spastics Society and Step Family argue that it should not be included in the formula but that other provision should be made. I believe that the best approach is to provide for the formula to be operated by the Child Support Agency and for the courts then to be able to use


their discretion. Having been relieved of the general duty to make orders regarding maintenance, the courts will, I believe, be able swiftly and efficiently to cope with the duty that we are now placing on them.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 101, in page 6, line 48, at end insert—
'( ) For the purposes of subsection (7), a child is disabled if he is blind, deaf or dumb or is substantially and permanently handicapped by illness, injury, mental disorder or congenital deformity or such other disability as may be prescribed.'.

No. 21, in page 7, line 4, leave out subsection (9).—[Mr. Scott.]

Clause 12

CHILD SUPPORT OFFICERS

Mr. Jack: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 9, line 9, leave out subsection (6).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 23.

Rev. Martin Smyth: May I take this opportunity to ask for clarification. As the Minister nodded when he sat down, I take that to mean that autistic children are included in the definition in Government amendment No. 101.
However, I should like some clarification. I appreciate the reason why Government amendment No. 22 has been tabled, but what is the thinking behind Government amendment No. 23? Does it refer to the child support officer for the United Kingdom, or will there be a separate officer for Northern Ireland? Why has the responsibility been placed specifically on the shoulders of the chief child support officer in Northern Ireland for any omissions or for any problems affecting child support officers there? I am not sure what it means and I should like some clarification.

Mr. Jack: Government amendment No. 23 is designed to ensure that proceedings such as those for judicial review are brought against the chief child support officer in Great Britain where the relevant child support officer who made the assessment or other relevant decision resides in Northern Ireland but is dealing with cases from Great Britain. Otherwise, there might be difficulties for clients of the Child Support Agency in bringing cases where their case had been dealt with by the child support centre in Belfast. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman the clarification that he requires.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 23, in page 9, line 12, at end insert—
'(7) Any proceedings (other than for an offence) in respect of any act or omission of a child support officer which, apart from this subsection, would fall to be brought against a child support officer resident in Northern Ireland may instead be brought against the Chief Child Support Officer.
(8) For the purposes of any proceedings brought by virtue of subsection (7), the acts or omissions of the child support officer shall be treated as the acts or omissions of the Chief Child Support Officer.'.—[Mr. Jack.]

Clause 13

INFORMATION REQUIRED BY SECRETARY OF STATE

Amendments made: No. 24, in page 9, line 17, after 'application', insert,
'or needed in connection with the collection or enforcement of child support or other maintenance under this Act'.

No. 25, in page 9, line 18, leave out
'person as may be prescribed',
and insert
'persons as may be determined in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State'. —[Mr. Jack.]

Mr. Jack: I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 9, line 22, after 'may', insert '-(a)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 27.

Mr. Jack: To avoid a lack of clarification, the amendment would allow information collected for the purposes of the benefit Acts to be used for purposes of child support legislation in Northern Ireland.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 27 in page 9, line 22, at end insert
'; or

(b) disclose it to the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland for purposes of any enactment corresponding to this Act and having effect with respect to Northern Ireland.'. —[Mr. Jack.]

Clause 14

POWERS OF INSPECTORS

Amendment proposed: No. 28, in page 10, line 3, leave out from 'question' to end of line 5 and insert
'any person aged 18 or over whom he finds on the premises.'. —[Mr. Jack.]

Mr. Allen: The amendment removes the phrase about inspectors interviewing people in the presence of someone else. Why?

Mr. Jack: It is merely to protect the interests of the child by restricting an inspector in the interviewing or questioning of a child.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 16

REVIEWS ON CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES

Amendment made: No. 27, in page 12, line 5, leave out subsection (7). —[Mr. Jack.]

Clause 17

REVIEWS OF DECISIONS OF CHILD SUPPORT OFFICERS

Amendments made: No. 30, in page 12, line 22, leave out
'under paragraph 16 of Schedule 1'.

No. 31, in page 12, line 26, leave out
'under paragraph 16 of Schedule 1'. —[Mr. Jack.]

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment No. 32, in page 12, line 28, leave out from beginning to 'that', in line 33, and insert—
'(5) An application under this section shall give the applicant's reasons (in writing) for making it.


(6) The Secretary of State shall refer to a child support officer any application under this section which is duly made; and the child support officer shall conduct the review applied for unless in his opinion there are no reasonable grounds for supposing'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 35 to 37.

The Solicitor-General: Government amendment No. 32 removes the requirement for applicants for a clause 17 review to have to state which of a specific list of grounds for review applies to their request. Instead, they will merely have to state in writing their reasons for requesting a review. That fulfils the commitment made by the Lord Chancellor to Lord Russell to remove the requirement for an applicant to make such a specification. There are no cost implications.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 33, in page 13, line 5, leave out subsection (11).—[Mr. Jack.]

Clause 18

REVIEWS AT INSTIGATION OF CHILD SUPPORT OFFICERS

Amendment made: No. 34, in page 13, line 37, leave out subsection (4).—[Mr. Jack.]

Clause 19

APPEALS

Amendments made: No. 35, in page 13, line 41, after `officer', insert—

'(a)'.

No. 36, in page 13, line 41, after '17', insert—
`(b) to refuse an application for such a review,'.

No. 37, in page 13, line 42, leave out from 'decision' to end of line 46.

No. 38, in page 14, line 1, after 'of', insert 'the chairman of. —[Mr. Jack.]

Clause 23

APPEAL TO CHILD SUPPORT COMMISSIONER

Amendment made: No. 39, in page 15, line 25, leave out
'the ground that the decision was wrong in'
and insert 'a question of'.—[Mr. Jack.]

Clause 24

APPEAL FROM CHILD SUPPORT COMMISSIONER ON QUESTION OF LAW

Amendments made: No. 40, in page 16, line 31, leave out from 'who' to 'was' in line 35.

No. 41, in page 16, line 36, after 'decision', insert 'or appeal decision'.

No. 42, in page 16, line 45, at end insert
'; and
original decision" means the decision to which the appeal decision in question relates'.—[Mr. Jack.]

Clause 26

REFERENCE TO COURT FOR DECLARATION OF PARENTAGE

Amendment made: No. 43, in page 18, line 29 [Clause 26], leave out
'satisfied that the case does not fall'
and insert
'not satisfied that the case falls'.—[Mr. Jack.]

Clause 27

POWER OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO INITIATE OR DEFEND ACTIONS OF DECLARATOR: SCOTLAND

Amendment made: No. 82, in page 19, line 9 leave out
'satisfied that the case does not fall'
and insert
'not satisfied that the case falls'.—[Mr. Jack.]

Clause 28

COLLECTION OF CHILD SUPPORT MAINTENANCE

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment No. 44, in page 19, line 19 leave out
'It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to'
and insert
'The Secretary of State may'.
This is purely a drafting amendment.

Mr. Allen: It is not purely a drafting amendment. Will the Minister say why the amendment waters down the Secretary of State's duty to collect maintenance payments, and what are the existing and continuing criteria on which the Secretary of State will collect such payments?

The Solicitor-General: It is a drafting amendment. As drafted, the clause places a duty on the Secretary of State to collect maintenance whenever a maintenance assessment has been made. That is not the policy intention. Our preference is for the parties to come to a satisfactory agreement between themselves—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will approve of that—on the arrangement for the payment of maintenance rather than for the agency to have to intervene. In the case of a mandatory application under clause 6, we would need to be sure that any such private arrangement was secure. In the case of a voluntary application under clause 4, it would be up to the party involved whether the agency was to become involved in the collection of maintenance. In that sense, it is a drafting amendment which will give effect to what I am sure everyone will agree is the right policy.

Amendment agreed to.

Miss Emma Nicholson: I beg to move amendment No. 102, in page 20, line 8 at end add—
'(4) The Secretary of State shall make regulations providing for the division of maintenance payments between the person with care and the Secretary of State in circumstances where the amount of family credit or any another benefit of prescribed kind paid to the person with the care of the child or children has been calculated on the basis that the absent parent is not paying any child support maintenance.'.
Clause 28 is very important in considering the way in which children will be supported. I tabled the probing amendment in order to ask the Secretary of State to consider more carefully the ways in which maintenance will be paid when the absent parent pays no child support maintenance. The amendment is self-explanatory and I am


confident that the Minister will give me a full reply. He will know that I am especially concerned about cases in which the absent parent has not been forced to pay any child maintenance, and I ask him to make regulations to provide for the division of maintenance payments between the person with care and the Secretary of State. I should be grateful for a full reply, but my hon. Friend will understand that this is a probing amendment.

Mr. Allen: The people who are dealt with in this clause are on very low incomes such as those on income support. A lone parent with a child under 11 years of age will be on a weekly income of £65·40. When one is trying to exist on such a low income, one's main concern is the security of that income. Any variation in that income is the difference between being able to pay a bill or not, between being able to buy a pair of shoes for a child or not, or to buy food for oneself or for the child. The amendment is extremely helpful, which is why we support the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) in her efforts to get an answer from the Minister.
Currently, in nearly a quarter of cases in which maintenance is relevant, the Department pays lone parents income support gross, and collects maintenance. That guarantees the parents security of income when maintenance is irregular or fluctuating, as it often is. The Government accept that important principle, but at present it applies only in respect of income support. The amendment would extend similar arrangements to parents with care who are attempting to enter the labour market.
Such a move would ensure that the Government's work incentives would not be undermined by the risk of insecurity of income preventing parents with care, or their partners, from contemplating entering paid employment for 16 hours a week or more, even with the help of family credit or disability working allowance.
The Minister may not wish to accept the amendment in its current form, but he would help such people greatly by accepting that a problem exists and that it could be tackled by means of a similar amendment.

Mr. Jack: I thank both my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) and the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen). My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend an undertaking, which I have echoed, that we would give careful consideration to the problem of interrupted maintenance payments, especially in respect of families receiving family credit. We want to find a way of responding to the spirit and content of my hon. Friend's remarks, and also to the genuine concern expressed by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North.
The difficulty is, however, that, unless we throw over what is generally accepted to be a good principle of family credit—that of providing an uninterrupted award for 26 weeks at a time—it has not yet proved possible to accommodate some of the variables that could arise if the payment of maintenance was interrupted. I do not wish to raise hon. Members' hopes unnecessarily: we may never be able to accomplish that.
I can give some encouraging information, however. If the initial maintenance award—which may not have been in place at all before the advent of the Child Support Agency—comes during the period of an existing award of family credit, the structure of the benefit will provide protection for the family concerned. Their existing award

cannot be changed. The additional income will come at a time when budgeting is based on the present level of income from work, combined with family credit and other social security benefits. If there is so much as a fear at the back of the mind of the parent with care that payment might be interrupted, the addition to the family finances can be retained as a "buffer state" against such an eventuality.
I hope that I do not do my hon. Friend an injustice when I say that, according to the wording of the amendment, the Secretary of State would keep half the money. I am not entirely sure that that is what she wants. I believe that both she and the hon. Member for Nottingham, North want to ensure that the maximum amount is available to families.

Miss Emma Nicholson: I trust that, if the amendment did mean that, the Secretary of State would give his half back.
As I have said, this is a probing amendment. My hon. Friend the Minister responded swiftly to my request for a meeting, and we shall discuss the amendment then. That is why I did not go into much detail. I hope that we shall come up with a solution, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for offering me the opportunity.
The amendment was not designed to enrich the Secretary of State, although, knowing him, I am sure that he would have given the money back. Perhaps we should try it.

Mr. Jack: In the same spirit of generosity, I accept my hon. Friend's explanation. I am sure that the Secretary of State would not want to establish a small fund in respect of family credit.
Let me say to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North that, as we rightly focus on specific parts of the Bill, we are in danger of losing sight of the whole package. For the first time, an agency is being established that will act extremely quickly on behalf of parents in care in the event of an interruption in the flow of maintenance. I have discussed the matter with those who will have the job of implementing the measure, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that they will react with all possible speed, enabling, for instance, the placing of a deduction-of earnings order on anyone who interrupts the flow of maintenance. The agency's prime task will be to support parents with care, and to ensure the maintenance of income for those on family credit wherever possible.
As the hon. Gentleman is keenly aware, although there may be a variable in payment for those on income support —wherever possible, we encourage individuals to maintain their personal methods of payment—if that is interrupted, income support can be paid gross.
I look forward to my discussions with my hon. Friend, and I hope that, following my reasssurances, she will not press the amendment to a Division.

Miss Nicholson: I am grateful for those reassurances. I am also grateful to the Minister for allowing me an appointment with him. I warn him that I shall arrive with three different formulae in an attempt to deal with this difficult problem. I am sure that one, if not all, will meet with his approval, and that he will be longing to implement all three at once.
Let me be serious for a moment about this very serious subject, and reiterate my concern for women who wish to return to work. I have always believed that real freedom is


economic freedom; once a person has a wage packet, however slender, he or she can stand up and be counted, look the world in the face and support dependants with more confidence. The weakness of any form of state benefit is the problem of lack of maintenance from the recipient's former other half. That is bound to make parents in care less than confident about the future. I have forwarded to my hon. Friend letters from lone mothers who want to return to work; they are perhaps my main concern.
I am happy to withdraw the amendment in the knowledge that my hon. Friend and I will have an extremely full debate, and that I have a tripartite bundle of perfect proposals for him to accept.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 29

COLLECTION AND ENFORCEMENT OF OTHER FORMS OF MAINTENANCE

Amendments made: No. 93, in page 20, line 9, leave out `under section 28'.

No. 94, in page 20, line 10, leave out `child support maintenance' and insert
'payments under section 28 or subsection (1A),'.

No. 45, in page 20, line 12, leave out from 'payable' to `to' in line 15.

No. 46, in page 20, line 16, at end insert—
'(1A) The Secretary of State may arrange for the collection of any periodical payments or secured periodical payments of a prescribed kind which are payable for the benefit of a child even though he is not arranging for the collection of child support maintenance with respect to that child.
(1B) Where—

(a) the Secretary of State is arranging, under this Act, for the collection of different payments ("the payments") from the same absent parent;
(b) an amount is collected by the Secretary of State from the absent parent which is less than the total amount due in respect of the payments; and
(c) the absent parent has not stipulated how that amount is to be allocated by the Secretary of State as between the payments,
the Secretary of State may allocate that amount as he sees fit.'.

No. 95, in page 20, line 21, leave out 'subsection (1)' and insert 'this section'.

No. 96, in page 20, line 24, leave out 'subsection (1)' and insert `this section'. —[Mr. Jack.]

Clause 30

DEDUCTION FROM EARNINGS ORDERS

Amendment made: No. 47, in page 21, line 1, leave out first `as'. —[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 31

REGULATIONS ABOUT DEDUCTION FROM EARNINGS ORDERS

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment No. 48, in page 23, line 2, leave out 'requirement imposed on him by the regulations' and insert
'regulation under this section which is designated for the purposes of this subsection'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this we may take Government amendment No. 49.

The Solicitor-General: Clause 31(8), as it stands, makes it a criminal offence not only to fail to comply with the requirements of a deduction-from-earnings order, but to fail to comply with any related regulation. While it is right that there should be sanctions against people who simply refuse to operate deduction-from-earnings orders, some of the regulations will cover minor matters such as the procedure to be followed in complying with an order. It would be quite oppressive if automatic criminal offences resulted from that, and the amendment prevents it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 49, in page 23, line 3, at end insert—
'(8A) In subsection (8) "designated" means designated by the regulations.'. —[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 32

LIABILITY ORDERS

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment No. 50, in page 23, line 28, at end insert—
'(4) On an application under subsection (2), the court or (as the case may be) the sheriff shall not question the maintenance assessment under which the payments of child support maintenance fell to be made.'.
The amendment prevents a magistrates court, or in Scotland a sheriff, from questioning the maintenance assessment when considering an application for a liability order. The correct method of challenging a maintenance assessment is through the review and appeals mechanism, as provided for in clauses 17 and 18. The amendment does not seek to restrict a person's right to challenge decisions made under the Bill; it merely seeks to ensure that they are heard in the correct forum.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 36

REGULATIONS ABOUT LIABILITY ORDERS: SCOTLAND

Amendment made: No. 83, in page 25, line 11, leave out paragraph (b).—[Mr. Jack.]

Clause 37

ENFORCEMENT OF LIABILITY ORDERS BY DILIGENCE: SCOTLAND

Amendment made: No. 89, in page 25, line 21, after `warrant', insert 'anywhere in Scotland'.—[Mr. Jack.]

Clause 38

COMMITMENT TO PRISON

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment No. 51, in page 25, line 34, leave out from 'sought' to 'he' in line 36 and insert ` —

(a) to levy an amount by distress under this Act; or
(b) to recover an amount by virtue of section 35,
and that amount, or any portion of it, remains unpaid'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 53 and 84.

The Solicitor-General: There is some substance in the amendments, but I shall be able to deal with them briefly. They are mainly technical.
Amendment No. 51 is consequential and is linked to clause 35, which was inserted by the will of the Committee. It provides that garnishee and charging order enforcement action may be taken by the Secretary of State under the provisions of the Bill. This is beneficial and welcome. The amendment means that the agency will have to have attempted distress action or garnishee or charging order action before applying to a magistrates court for a warrant to commit a maintenance debtor to prison. This means that the full range of collection options will be considered and at least one or other of the enforcement measures attempted before the final sanction of imprisonment is considered.
I said that I would mention the matter briefly when we were debating an earlier clause as a consequence of an issue having been raised by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). The hon. Gentleman asked whether enforcement of liability orders throughout the United Kingdom meant that civil imprisonment would be an immediate possibility once a liability order was registered in the sheriff court, without a hearing by the sheriff. The hon. Gentleman will understand the relevance of what we are now considering. The answer is that the court will have to ensure that the various methods of collecting money have been considered and have failed before it goes on to take the step of civil imprisonment. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that.

Dr. Godman: I wish to ask the Solicitor-General some questions relative to amendment No. 84. Section 4(4) of the Civil Imprisonment (Scotland) Act 1882 states that
a warrant of imprisonment may be granted of new, subject to the same provisions and conditions, at intervals of not less than six months, against the same person in respect of failure to pay the same sum or sums of aliment and expenses of process.
Does that mean that a person could be gaoled over and over again?
Subsection (5) states that
the imprisonment shall not to any extent operate as a satisfaction or extinction of the debt, or interfere with the creditor's other rights and remedies for its recovery".
Am I right in thinking that after the individual is released from prison he still has all the debts to pay?
I remind the Solicitor-General that from 1985 to 1989 the number of civil prisoners in Scottish prisons who had been convicted under the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1880 and the Civil Imprisonment (Scotland) Act 1882 produced an average of one a year. We are therefore talking of only a few people. In the circumstances, would it not make good sense for such persons to be imprisoned at weekends? If they have to serve six weeks imprisonment, why should they not serve that period over 10 weekends? If such persons were employed, such an arrangement would enable them to retain their employment.

Mr. Hardy: I reinforce the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). Does the Solicitor-General recognise that magistrates are increasingly perturbed at having to send people to prison to serve short sentences for non-payment of fines, for example? I recognise that there is a distress mechanism designed to avoid custodial sentences, but the prison population is enormous and prison sentences for

non-payment of fines, for example, can be counterproductive, to put it mildly, and engender bitterness and perhaps viciousness subsequently. Consideration should at least be given to the proposal that there should be weekend imprisonment, if imprisonment there has to be. Alternatively, community service orders could be made to obviate the need for imprisonment. Incarceration is costly to the community and not necessarily helpful to those receiving such sentences.

The Solicitor-General: I can answer straightforwardly the three questions of the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) and the one question of the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy).
The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow produced an illuminating statistic when he said that only one person—I think that I have this right—was imprisoned in Scotland last year for failing to pay debts that he could well afford to pay. We are talking of the ultimate sanction. There are many methods which can be used to try to get people to pay before it is necessary to send them to prison. If, however, someone refuses to pay when he has the means to do so and he has to be sent to prison, and if after six months or a year he is equally obdurate and continues to refuse to pay, it might be necessary to send that person to prison again. No one would wish to do that, of course, and I am sure that the courts would try to implement every other method available to them to avoid that happening. As I have said, there are plenty of other methods. Whether the prison sentence should be served at weekends is out with the scope of the Bill and would be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland or my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Dr. Godman: Will the Solicitor-General, in his characteristically courteous way, convey my views about weekend imprisonment to the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Home Secretary?

The Solicitor-General: I can certainly offer to do that. I hope that I have answered the questions of the hon. Members for Greenock and Port Glasgow and for Wentworth.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 53, in page 26, line 12, leave out `21' and insert '18'.

No. 84, in page 27, line 4, at end insert—
'(14) Where a liability order has been made, the Secretary of State (and he alone) shall be regarded as, and may exercise all the powers of, the creditor for the purposes of section 4 (imprisonment for failure to obey decree for alimentary debt) of the Civil Imprisonment (Scotland) Act 1882.'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 41

CONTRIBUTION TO MAINTENANCE BY DEDUCTION FROM BENEFIT

Mr. Jack: I beg to move amendment No. 54, in page 28, line 31, after 'that', insert '(a)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 55.

Mr. Jack: The amendment would allow arrears of maintenance to be recovered by deduction from benefit within the existing restrictions on deductions from benefit.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 55, in page 28, line 33, at end insert
'; and
(b) arrears of child support maintenance are recovered.'.—[Mr. Jack.]

Clause 43

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED BY SECTION 6

Mr. Roger Sims: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 29, line 44, leave out second 'her' and insert 'either parent'.
In the form in which the Bill left the Committee, it appeared that there was an exemption from an obligation to co-operate that related to the parents of the child if by so doing they would cause harm and undue distress to the child or children. That did not appear to extend to children of the absent parent, and there could be circumstances in which co-operation could cause harm and undue distress to such children. The matter was brought to my attention by the NSPCC, which was naturally concerned about it. Accordingly, I tabled my amendment.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security then tabled new clause 5, and I apologise to the House for not being in the Chamber when the clause was discussed. I believe that the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) referred to the problem which concerned me. I should explain that I was detained by a meeting of a Select Committee.
It seems at first glance that new clause 5 might meet my concerns. Rather than discuss the matter at length, I will give my hon. Friend the Minister the opportunity to respond now.

Mr. Jack: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) for introducing this important amendment and I well understand the motives behind it. The amendment is designed to protect the interests of children living with absent parents. It was an underlying theme of earlier discussions, on which we have sought to reflect, that concerns about children in that position should be recognised.
We do not take lightly the risk of harm or undue distress to the children of the absent parent. New clause 5, to which my hon. Friend alluded, obliges the Secretary of State and child support officers, when taking action under the Bill, to have regard to the welfare of any child affected by the exercise of discretion. That covers consideration both by the Secretary of State under clause 6, and by a child support officer under clause 43. I believe that that existing obligation is sufficient in itself to respond to genuine risks to the welfare of the absent parent's children. However, I listened carefully to my hon. Friend's remarks and I will reflect further on them when we devise the advice and guidance that we shall be giving to the staff who will have to operate that provision.

Mr. Hardy: I share the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) who gives distinguished service to the NSPCC. May we take it that the interests of children born into the absent parent's subsequent family will also be considered?

Mr. Jack: Clearly it will be a case of the child support officer listening—in accordance with the requirements of the clause—to the information that is put before him. I cannot anticipate the nature of that information or other aspects of it, but we shall give that aspect consideration when devising the guidance to which I referred earlier.

Mr. Sims: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's explanation and for the assurances that he has given. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Miss Lestor: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 30, line 6, after '(5)' insert '(a)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments:

No. 3, in page 30, line 7, leave out
'may give a reduced benefit direction with respect to the parent' and insert 'shall notify this to the parent, in writing;

(b) such a notice shall include a statement as to the right of the parent to appeal to a child support appeal tribunal against the child support officer's decision and shall specify the time limit for bringing such an appeal;
(c) if the parent decides not to appeal, the child support officer may give a reduced benefit direction only after the expiry of the time limit for bringing an appeal; and
(d) if the parent appeals, a child support officer may give a reduced benefit direction only after the outcome of that appeal has been notified in writing to the parent.'.

No. 4, in page 30, line 19, at end insert—
`(11) Once a reduced benefit direction has been given in respect of a parent no further reduced benefit direction may be given in respect of her failure to comply with any requirement under section 6(1).'.

No. 5, in page 30, line 34, at end insert—
'(12) The Secretary of State shall make regulations specifying circumstances in which the child support officer may give a reduced benefit direction—

(a) for such shorter period as may appear to him to be appropriate;
(b) for such smaller amount as is appropriate in the circumstances of the case.'.

Miss Lestor: I reiterate our support for the principle that parents should, as far as possible, and whatever the circumstances of their partnership—if they had a permanent relationship in the first place—maintain their children. That support should be emotional as well as financial, and the two are not interchangeable.
We are considering a sensitive and often distressing aspect of human relations, as was said by the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson). Most of us agree that such matters should remain in the private domain wherever possible. If it is necessary for outside agencies to become involved, one hopes that they will handle matters with suitable sensitivity, and with respect for the decisions and opinions of the parents—particularly lone parents—and the children concerned. I am not convinced that clause 43 goes anywhere near meeting those criteria.
Most mothers will and do co-operate when questioned in pursuit of a maintenance claim, as the figures show. Women who do otherwise have good reason. They may not be sure who the father is, or disclosure of his name may cause distress to his new or former partner. The child may have been conceived in a relationship with a very close relative. It is also possible that the mother fears violence. She may have experienced it already—or fears it because she has lived under the threat of violence in the past. Some


women also have a perfectly reasonable desire to have nothing more to do with the father, even through a third party.
If the new arrangements are as positive for parents as the Government suggest, a mother's reasons for not co-operating must be very strong. The Government claim that specially trained people will determine whether to proceed with an individual claim, but many women will find it difficult to talk freely to a stranger—however sympathetic that person may be—without knowing whether their fears will be respected, or whether their remarks will lead to the claim not being pursued.
Many women have told me that they are willing to talk only if there is a guarantee that their partner or ex-partner will not be pursued. One is dealing with subjective judgments, and it is difficult to put oneself in another person's shoes. The sums of money involved are pathetic, and I wonder whether the process can be justified in terms of the potential human misery to which it may give rise.
6.45 pm
I am all in favour of increasing co-operation with agencies, but I cannot condone what is clearly an attempt to gain information by a form of coercion. Why do the Government turn their back on incentives and choose instead to impose benefit penalties and the withdrawal of passported benefits, even if the mother co-operates and a maintenance claim is successfully concluded?
I was pleased when, earlier this year, their Lordships overturned the benefit penalty clause—the old clause 22 but I was disappointed to see it reintroduced in Committee. It is the view of a wide range of voluntary organisations, children's charities, church groups, and other bodies and individuals that there is no financial or practical justification for imposing economic penalties on people who are already poor—penalties that will punish the child along with the mother.
Right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House received an excellent briefing from 17 voluntary organisations which spells out in detail their shared objections and fears. The Government claim that without sanctions the whole scheme would flounder. However, I do not recall any Minister ever telling the House that a major cause of a reduction in maintenance recovery by the DSS over the past decade has been the absence of benefit penalties. On the contrary, in a previous debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) eloquently pointed out the disastrous consequences of the DSS giving maintenance collection a low priority in its allocation of staff, which is partly responsible for the fall in maintenance payments.
In Committee, the Government agreed to widen to some extent the groups of mothers who would be exempted from penalties. Clauses 6 and 43 allow a woman not to co-operate where there is a real risk of harm or undue distress to her, or to the child living with her. I welcome that provision, but the Secretary of State admitted that the benefit penalty will be one of the harshest in the social security system. There are good grounds for allowing greater flexibility, including a reduction in the penalty in cases of hardship. The Secretary of State claimed that clauses 6 and 43 provide a safeguard that goes beyond the existing legal position. That is true, as far as it goes, but is it not currently the case

that maintenance must be pursued before any benefit can be paid? If so, how can penalties for non co-operation be viewed as an additional safeguard? That is totally illogical.
It is not clear what action might be taken against a woman who does not know the whereabouts of a former partner. A west midlands citizens advice bureau cites the case of a lone parent with two children, in which, under a court order, the father paid maintenance of 5p per child because he was unemployed. However, it was suspected that he might be working again, so the DSS said that the lone parent should seek a variation of the order, to have it increased to £20 per week. It has been deducting that amount from her benefit even though she has not received a penny extra in maintenance. She gave the DSS her ex-partner's last known address, but she has been told that the address is incorrect and unless she applies again with his current address her benefit will be stopped altogether. That cannot be right, but most of the agencies, and in particular the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, have given us examples of that. How will clause 43 apply in those circumstances?
We all support the view that it is in the child's interest to have continuing contact with the non-resident parent whenever possible. However, the Government have deliberately kept separate the issues of maintenance and access—and, in that context, I do not mean access awarded by the courts. The Bill fails to take proper account of the different ways in which a non-resident parent may have agreed to share the caring of his child. I have raised that point on many occasions with the Minister, but I have not received a satisfactory explanation or elucidation of his views.
Weekends, holidays and days out may have been agreed to the mutual satisfaction of both parents and the child. Many non-resident fathers make a useful contribution to the upbringing of their child. Indirectly they make a financial contribution by having the child at weekends and holidays, as I have said. However, the Government, in their wisdom, see fit in all circumstances to reassess the situation and bring the issues down to money.
If a father has remarried, but says, "I'll have Johnny at the weekends and for holidays because that is my responsibility; however, I can't pay any money because my circumstances are difficult", we will intervene in law and force him to pay money. We will therefore inject into a relationship a sourness and disgruntlement that were not there before.
In Committee we expressed our grave concern that so much of the detail of the new maintenance collection system would be left to regulations. We have yet to see those regulations. Will regulations under clause 43 be available in draft? Will they go to the Social Security Advisory Committee for consideration? Will guidance on the implementation of the regulations be sent for comment to all the voluntary organisations which have sent their detailed comments on the proposals to the Minister? That is the least that we can expect in view of the fact that, as I have said, much of this is being left to regulation.
I share the concern expressed by organisations that appeals on the benefit penalty cannot work satisfactorily if there is no published guidance on the circumstances in which the penalty will be applied. The issue should not have to wait for case law to emerge, but I am afraid that that will happen. For those reasons, although we accept


the principle that the absent parent should help to maintain the child, we want to amend the Bill to provide additional safeguards to mothers and their children.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are intended to ensure that the benefit penalty would be applied only after the expiry of the time limit for appealing against it or after an unsuccessful appeal. That is very important. In other words, the benefit penalty should be used as a last resort after all hearings, including appeals, have been completed. That seems only fair. In view of the evidence that I have referred to from the NACAB—and I could have spent much longer referring to other cases—I hope that the Minister will respond favourably.
In Committee the Minister said that a parent with care who refused to co-operate and who did not seem to have reasonable grounds for non-co-operation would have six weeks to change her mind. After that time had elapsed, the case would be referred to a second child support officer who would notify the mother in writing of a further period in which to change her mind. That would probably be about two weeks. If the mother continued to feel unable to co-operate and failed to persuade the child support officer that she had good cause, the benefit penalty would be imposed immediately. Only then could she appeal to a child support tribunal. That seems less than fair. In fact, it could cause real harm to the child because of the effect on the family's income.
It is important that the agency treats lone parents and non-resident parents fairly and in a similar way. It seems quite illogical and unjust that, where there is a paternity dispute, no maintenance assessment will be made until after the case has been heard by the courts. However, the same principle would not apply to the lone parent with care who may find the benefit reduced before appeal to the tribunal. The fact of granting an appeal takes for granted the fact that she might win the appeal. Why should she be deprived of benefit in the meantime?
I want to draw the Minister's attention to the way in which that issue is handled in the Australian maintenance system which the Government have used as a model for the system that underlies this Bill. In Australia the benefit penalty is not brought to bear until after the appeal process is completed. In 1988–89 there were just eight cancellations of benefit and in 1989–90 there were 35. That seems a much fairer system.
There is also a parallel within our legislation. Since April of this year, any unemployed person receiving benefit and challenging an application for voluntary unemployment deduction made by the state on the ground that he or she is capable of work continues to be paid at the normal level until after the appeal. Why are we harsher on children and lone parents when that system applies to the unemployed? Within the Bill there is a proposal that no maintenance assessment will be made in cases involving disputed paternity until paternity is proven.
It is important that any new system that could threaten the economic well-being of a family should be seen to be fair. We believe that there is a strong case for testing decisions on appeal, before they are carried out, on the grounds of natural justice. There is an inconsistency in the way in which we deal with many aspects of benefit. I can envisage a situation in which many mothers and their children will suffer in the short term who, in the longer term, will not have the penalty clause applied. It is essential that no reduction should take place when there is uncertainty about the mother's ability to co-operate.
I hope that the Minister will respond positively to those points. In addition, we should bear in mind the fact that one of the main purposes of the Bill is to save the Treasury money. Child support officers will therefore be working within strict targets for levels of maintenance collection. The resulting harm to lone parents and especially their children cannot possibly be justified in those circumstances. Lone parents have told me in my advice surgeries that they have already been told that they will lose benefit if they do not name the father—and that happened even before this Bill entered Committee. That problem is not confined to my area. Organisations such as NACAB and the Child Poverty Action Group have gathered substantial evidence from many parts of the country to show what is happening.
Amendment No. 4 proposes to ensure that a benefit penalty cannot be repeated simply because a parent with care moves from one benefit to another—for example, if a mother moves from income support to family credit or disability working allowance. It also covers circumstances in which a parent with care may have a break in a benefit claim and then moves back on to the same benefit.
In Committee the Secretary of State said that there was no intention of reapplying a further period of deduction to the same claim for the same benefit. However, that still leaves open the possibility of a repeat penalty in the kind of cases that I have just outlined. I thought that the Government wanted to encourage lone parents to seek work. Applying a second benefit penalty for parents with care, the majority of whom will be lone parents trying to move to work and on to family credit or disability working allowance, can hardly be described as providing an incentive for that lone parent to return to work.
Research carried out by the DSS has shown that lone parents as a group often go into and out of work possibly more often than others and that is a result of their dual role as carers and workers. We are therefore talking about a significant number of people who could be affected by repeat penalties at the very time when they are trying desperately to achieve some measure of progress towards independence. As the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West said, the pay packet is a key to economic independence. Many young mothers are striving for that independence. As a result, many of them may feel a disincentive to look for work that involves 16 hours or more a week.
I now give the House a couple of examples that have come to the attention of citizens' advice bureaux. In Derbyshire, a client who is divorced had a court order for the payment of £60 a week for her two sons. The husband paid irregularly. In the weeks when he defaulted, she received income support. When he paid, she was 10p over the limit. As a result, she was yo-yoing on and off income support. I ask the House to imagine what that meant in terms of budgeting and managing her family income. In Yorkshire, a client's family credit book had been delayed. She contacted the family credit unit, which said that she should have been notified and that she should put in a fresh claim and that it would be backdated. In the meantime, of course, she fell behind with all her bills.
7 pm
As the House knows, Opposition Members are concerned about the damaging effect that the legislation will have on children who are caught up in the process. This is not a Child Support Bill; it is a Treasury support


Bill. There is no incentive for a woman to name the father of her child. In fact, many who receive maintenance will lose their passported benefits. A repeat penalty will significantly worsen the effects of a benefit reduction. A parent with care who has already suffered an 18-month benefit penalty will have little money to meet her children's needs. I cannot see any justification for repeating the penalty just because she has had a break in a claim or has moved into work of 16 hours or more a week. That is a real worry. I ask the Minister to confirm that that is not the Government's intention and that he takes on board my criticisms of the application of the Bill, particularly the penalty clauses.

Mr. Jack: I could never accuse the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) of being uncharitable, but, in her comments about our intentions in respect of the Bill, she has perhaps done something that she did not intend to do. Ever since the Bill was introduced, we have made it abundantly clear that the interests of children—hence the name of our White Paper—come first. That means that we see in the measure the pre-eminence of the child. It is sad that the hon. Lady has not reflected on the fact that the Bill sorts out the most unsatisfactory present situation in which maintenance is a concern or, more important, is not even paid.
I can give the hon. Lady an assurance in respect of sensitivity. We share her anxiety on that matter, but I am disappointed—I can understand why she has her views —that she does not reflect on the fact that the Government have moved greatly in terms of the original benefit sanction as proposed in the White Paper. We have moved to reflect on the sensitivity of the human situation with which we are dealing—for example, our amendment, which was accepted in Committee, about the adoption of an onus of proof determined by the words "harm and undue distress".
The hon. Lady did not give any weight to the presumption to be believed on behalf of the parent with care when she explains the sometimes difficult and sensitive human circumstances which lead her to resist co-operating with the Bill. We have given an assurance that people will be presumed to be believed, but the hon. Lady knows that part of the reason why, under the present arrangements, people are sometimes frightened to co-operate is that they do not have reassurance of the kind that we shall introduce with the Bill. I cannot allow the hon. Lady to dismiss with an easy hand the thought that our people will not be properly trained to deal with sensitive matters and to give guidance, advice and counselling, as we said in Committee they would.

Mr. Hardy: No matter what the training may be, will the Minister deny that, if maintenance equals the amount that a lady is receiving in income support, she and her child will be worse off because she will lose the passported benefits to which my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) referred? She will lose the value of the free school meal. Therefore, substantial numbers of children may have a less satisfactory diet than they currently enjoy.

Mr. Jack: If that is the hon. Gentleman's understanding of our proposals, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have failed to get the message across, so let me try again. We are talking about a benefit sanction, which, again, we have reduced to 20 per cent. of the adult rate—it has nothing to do with the children's rate—of income support.

We have softened our approach by having a cooling-off period and a period of structured reduction in benefit. The woman parent with care will still be on income support and have full access to the range of passported benefits associated with that benefit. The hon. Gentleman has not entirely caught up with our proper intent.

Mr. Allen: Will the Minister therefore take the final step in being flexible by ensuring that the penalty is not a flat rate sledgehammer which applies to all women who are fined for refusing to name the father but can be a graded approach such as that which operates in respect of other benefits?

Mr. Jack: The easiest way to deal with the problem is ultimately for the parent with care to reconsider her position—that is, precisely by giving a six-week cooling off period and a further two weeks before any benefit sanction would come into operation. We have given the parent with care the chance to end the benefit sanction with no tapers and no fancy frills if she chooses to co-operate. We believe that parents will, with the right guidance, be encouraged so to do.
I cannot accept the hon. Lady's argument that our system is draconian. She prays in aid Australia, but she has been a little selective in her information. Under the Australian system, somebody who ultimately decides not to co-operate does not have our reduction of benefit; he or she loses the lot for ever and a day. If that is the Opposition's policy, I hope that everybody has taken note of their advocacy of the Australian system and their association with something that is clearly draconian compared with our much softer and more sensitive approach.
The hon. Lady discussed the shared costs of parenting. I owe her a reply on that point. Where the absent parent looks after the child for a substantial time, and when there are special weekends or time put aside, the absent parent will retain an appropriate proportion of the maintenance available. I assure the hon. Lady that we are giving careful thought to that matter. I hope that those words reassure her.
The hon. Lady asked me about consultation on the regulations. The Bill is not, effectively, a social security provision, but, out of courtesy, we are to put our regulations before the Social Security Advisory Committee. Of course we shall consult as widely as we consulted in respect of replies to the White Paper. We want the benefit of the views of others.
The hon. Lady seems to be taking a typical Opposition approach, which is never to bring matters to a head and always to postpone them until the day after and the day after that. A decision must be made whether people regard the flow of maintenance or the child as the most important or whether they wish to stick to their principles. Our proposals give a woman the opportunity to end any sanctions straight away. We believe that, in our much softer and gentle approach, that stage should be reached rather than postponing the decision for ever and a day.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 5, in page 30, line 34, at end insert—
'(12) The Secretary of State shall make regulations specifying circumstances in which the child support officer may give a reduced benefit direction—

(a) for such shorter period as may appear to him to be appropriate;


(b) for such smaller amount as is appropriate in the circumstances of the case.'.—[Mr. Allen.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 113, Noes 268.

Division No. 223]
[7.09 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Lewis, Terry


Allen, Graham
Livingstone, Ken


Anderson, Donald
Livsey, Richard


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Ashton, Joe
Loyden, Eddie


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
McAllion, John


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
McCartney, Ian


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Macdonald, Calum A.


Battle, John
McFall, John


Beckett, Margaret
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Beith, A. J.
McMaster, Gordon


Bellotti, David
Madden, Max


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Bermingham, Gerald
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Meacher, Michael


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Meale, Alan


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Canavan, Dennis
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Mullin, Chris


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Murphy, Paul


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Nellist, Dave


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
O'Hara, Edward


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Corbyn, Jeremy
Pike, Peter L.


Cox, Tom
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Crowther, Stan
Primarolo, Dawn


Cryer, Bob
Quin, Ms Joyce


Cummings, John
Randall, Stuart


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Redmond, Martin


Dewar, Donald
Richardson, Jo


Dixon, Don
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Dobson, Frank
Ruddock, Joan


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Salmond, Alex


Fisher, Mark
Sedgemore, Brian


Flannery, Martin
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Flynn, Paul
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Short, Clare


Foster, Derek
Skinner, Dennis


Fraser, John
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Soley, Clive


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Spearing, Nigel


Grocott, Bruce
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Hardy, Peter
Turner, Dennis


Haynes, Frank
Wallace, James


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Winnick, David


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Worthington, Tony


Janner, Greville



Johnston, Sir Russell
Tellers for the Ayes:


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Mr. Robert N. Wareing and Mr. Thomas McAvoy.


Kilfoyle, Peter



Leighton, Ron





NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)


Allason, Rupert
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)


Amess, David
Baldry, Tony


Amos, Alan
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Arbuthnot, James
Batiste, Spencer


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Beggs, Roy


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Bellingham, Henry


Ashby, David
Bendall, Vivian


Atkinson, David
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)





Benyon, W.
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Body, Sir Richard
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gregory, Conal


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Boswell, Tim
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bottomley, Peter
Grist, Ian


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Ground, Patrick


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)
Hague, William


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hanley, Jeremy


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hannam, John


Brazier, Julian
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Harris, David


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Haselhurst, Alan


Buck, Sir Antony
Hawkins, Christopher


Budgen, Nicholas
Hayes, Jerry


Burns, Simon
Hayward, Robert


Burt, Alistair
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Holt, Richard


Carrington, Matthew
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Carttiss, Michael
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Cash, William
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Chapman, Sydney
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Chope, Christopher
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Churchill, Mr
Hunt, Rt Hon David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Hunter, Andrew


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Irvine, Michael


Colvin, Michael
Irving, Sir Charles


Conway, Derek
Jack, Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Janman, Tim


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jessel, Toby


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Cormack, Patrick
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Couchman, James
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Key, Robert


Curry, David
Kilfedder, James


Davis, David (Boothferry)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Day, Stephen
Knapman, Roger


Dickens, Geoffrey
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Dicks, Terry
Knowles, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lawrence, Ivan


Dover, Den
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Dunn, Bob
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Dykes, Hugh
Lord, Michael


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard


Evennett, David
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Farr, Sir John
McCrindle, Sir Robert


Favell, Tony
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fenner, Dame Peggy
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Maclean, David


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fishburn, John Dudley
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Fookes, Dame Janet
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Forman, Nigel
Malins, Humfrey


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mans, Keith


Forth, Eric
Marland, Paul


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Marlow, Tony


Fox, Sir Marcus
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Franks, Cecil
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Freeman, Roger
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


French, Douglas
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Fry, Peter
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gale, Roger
Miller, Sir Hal


Gardiner, Sir George
Miscampbell, Norman


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gill, Christopher
Mitchell, Sir David


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Moate, Roger


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Goodlad, Alastair
Monro, Sir Hector


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Morrison, Sir Charles


Gorst, John
Moss, Malcolm






Nelson, Anthony
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Nicholls, Patrick
Squire, Robin


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Steen, Anthony


Norris, Steve
Stern, Michael


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Stevens, Lewis


Oppenheim, Phillip
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Page, Richard
Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Paice, James
Stokes, Sir John


Patnick, Irvine
Sumberg, David


Patten, Rt Hon John
Summerson, Hugo


Pawsey, James
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Portillo, Michael
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Powell, William (Corby)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Price, Sir David
Thorne, Neil


Rattan, Keith
Thurnham, Peter


Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Trimble, David


Rathbone, Tim
Trippier, David


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Trotter, Neville


Rhodes James, Sir Robert
Twinn, Dr Ian


Riddick, Graham
Viggers, Peter


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Ritkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Walden, George


Roe, Mrs Marion
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Ward, John


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Rost, Peter
Watts, John


Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela
Wells, Bowen


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Wheeler, Sir John


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Whitney, Ray


Sayeed, Jonathan
Widdecombe, Ann


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wiggin, Jerry


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wilkinson, John


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wilshire, David


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Wolfson, Mark


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wood, Timothy


Shersby, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Sims, Roger
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Younger, Rt Hon George


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)



Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Tellers for the Noes:


Speed, Keith
Mr. Tom Sackville and Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.


Speller, Tony

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 44

FEES

Amendment made: No. 56, in page 30, line 43, at end Insert—
`( ) may require any information which is needed for the purpose of determining the amount of any such fee to be furnished, in accordance with the regulations, by such person as may be prescribed;'.—[Mr. Jack.]

Clause 46

UNAUTHORISED DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION

Amendment made: No. 57, in page 31, line 40, after 'or, insert `the staff of'.—[Mr. Jack.]

Clause 47

SUPPLEMENTARY POWERS TO MAKE REGULATIONS

Amendments made: No. 58, in page 33, line 1, at end insert—
`(aa) extending the categories of case to which section 17 or 18 applies;'.

No. 59, in page 33, line 5, at end insert—

'( ) for the adjustment, for the purpose of taking account of the retrospective effect of a maintenance assessment, of amounts payable under the assessment;
( ) for the adjustment, for the purpose of taking account of over-payments or under-payments of child support maintenance, of amounts payable under a maintenance assessment;'.—[Mr. Jack.]

Clause 48

REGULATIONS AND ORDERS

Amendments made: No. 60, in page 33, line 22, leave out `or (9)' and insert `(9) or (10)'.

No. 61, in page 33, line 23, after '41', insert '(1), 43'.

—[Mr. Jack.]

Clause 50

INTERPRETATION

Amendments made: No. 62, in page 34, line 9, at end insert—
child benefit" has the same meaning as in the Child Benefit Act 1975;'.

No. 85, in page 34, leave out line 14.

No. 63, in page 34, line 26, at end insert—
maintenance agreement" has the meaning given in section 9(1);'.

No. 86, in page 34, leave out line 43.—[Mr. Jack.]

Clause 53

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT, ETC

Amendments made:: No. 64, in page 36, line 29, leave out `Secretary of State' and insert

'Lord Chancellor, the Secretary of State or Lord Advocate or by any of them acting jointly.'.

No. 97, in page 36, line 31, at end insert
`(including, in particular, for different cases or categories of case)'.

No. 65, in page 36, line 31, at end insert—
`(3A) An order under subsection (2) may make such supplemental, incidental or transitional provision as appears to the person making the order to be necessary or expedient in connection with the provisions brought into force by the order, including such adaptations or modifications of—

(a) the provisions so brought into force;
(b) any provisions of this Act then in force; or
(c) any provision of any other enactment,
as appear to him to be necessary or expedient.
(3B) Different provision may be made by virtue of subsection (3A) with respect to different periods.
(3C) Any provision made by virtue of subsection (3A) may, in particular, include provision for—

(a) the enforcement of a maintenance assessment (including the collection of sums payable under the assessment) as if the assessment were a court order of a prescribed kind;
(b) the registration of maintenance assessments with the appropriate court in connection with any provision of a kind mentioned in paragraph (a);
(c) the variation, on application made to a court, of the provisions of a maintenance assessment relating to the method of making payments fixed by the assessment or the intervals at which such payments are to be made;
(d) a maintenance assessment, or an order of a prescribed kind relating to one or more children, to be deemed, in prescribed circumstances, to have been validly made for all purposes or for such purposes as may be prescribed.
In paragraph (c) "court" includes a single justice.
(3D) The Lord Chancellor, the Secretary of State or the Lord Advocate may by order make such amendments or repeals in, or such modifications of, such enactments as may be specified in the order, as appear to him to be necessary or


expedient in consequence of any provision made by or under this Act (including any provision made by virtue of subsection (3A)).
(3E) This Act shall, in its application to the Isles of Scilly, have effect subject to such exceptions, adaptations and modifications as the Secretary of State may by order prescribe.'.

No. 87, in page 36, line 32, leave out 'and 34' and insert 34 and 45'.

No. 66, in page 36, line 32, after '34', insert
'and paragraph 3B of Schedule 5'.

No. 88, in page 36, line 33, leave out 'and 27' and insert
', 27 and (Right of audience: Scotland)'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Schedule 1

MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENTS

Amendments made: No. 67, in page 40, line 30, leave out `sub-paragraph (1) "the' and insert 'this paragraph the". '.

No. 68, in page 42, line 19, at end insert—
'(e) where a new maintenance assessment is made with respect to any qualifying child with respect to whom the assessment in question was in force immediately before the making of the new assessment.'.

No. 69, in page 42, line 19, at end insert—
'(1A) A maintenance assessment made in response to an application under section 4 or 7 shall be cancelled by a child support officer if the person on whose application the assessment was made asks him to do so.
(1B) A maintenance assessment made in response to an application under section 6 shall be cancelled by a child support officer if—

(a) the person on whose application the assessment was made ("the applicant") asks him to do so; and
(b) he is satisfied that the applicant has ceased to fall within subsection (1) of that section.'.

No. 70, in page 42, line 25, at end insert—
'(2A) Where—

(a) at any time a maintenance assessment is in force but a child support officer would no longer have jurisdiction to make it if it were to be applied for at that time; and
(b) the assessment has not been cancelled, or has not ceased to have effect, under or by virtue of any other provision made by or under this Act,
it shall be taken to have continuing effect unless cancelled by a child support officer in accordance with such prescribed provision (including provision as to the effective date of cancellation) as the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to make.'.

No. 71, in page 42, line 29, after 'sub-paragraph', insert '(2A) or'.

No. 72, in page 42, line 31, leave out 'under this paragraph'.

No. 73, in page 42, line 41, after 'such', insert 'supplemental, incidental or'.—[Mr. Jack.]

Schedule 3

CHILD SUPPORT APPEAL TRIBUNALS

Amendments made: No. 74, in page 44, line 38, leave out 'to act as full-time chairmen'.

No. 75, in page 45, line 1, after 'appoint', insert 'regional and other'.—[Mr. Jack.]

Schedule 5

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendment made: No. 76, in page 48, line 26, at end insert—

'The House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (c.24)

2A.—(1) The House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 shall be amended as follows.

(2) In Part I, (disqualifying judicial offices), the following entries shall be inserted at the appropriate places—
Chief or other Child Support Commissioner (excluding a person appointed under paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 to the Child Support Act 1991).
Chief or other Child Support Commissioner for Northern Ireland (excluding a person appointed under paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 to the Child Support Act 1991).

(3) In Part III (other disqualifying offices), the following entry shall be inserted at the appropriate place—
Regional or other full-time chairman of a child support appeal tribunal established under section 20 of the Child Support Act 1991".

The Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 (c.25)

2B.—(1) In Part I of The Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 (disqualifying judicial offices), the following entries shall be inserted at the appropriate places—
Chief or other Child Support Commissioner (excluding a person appointed under paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 to the Child Support Act 1991).
Chief or other Child Support Commissioner for Northern Ireland (excluding a person appointed under paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 to the Child Support Act 1991).".

No. 77, in page 48, line 34, at end insert—

'The Insolvency Act 1986 (c.45)

3B. In section 281(5)(b) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (effect of discharge of bankrupt), after "family proceedings" there shall be inserted "or under a maintenance assessment made under the Child Support Act 1991".'.

No. 91, in page 48, line 34, at end insert—

'Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 (c.66)

3A. (1) The Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 shall be amended as follows.

(2) In section 32 (vesting of estate and dealings of debtor after sequestration)—

(a) in subsection (3)—

(i) after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted—"
(c) any obligation of his to pay child support maintenance under the Child Support Act 1991,";

(ii) after "relevant obligations" where second occurring there shall be inserted "referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) above";
(b) in subsection (5) after "Diligence" there shall be inserted "(which, for the purposes of this section, includes the making of a deduction from earnings order under the Child Support Act 1991)".

(3) In section 37 (effect of sequestration on diligence), in subsection (5A) for "or a conjoined arrestment order" there is substituted ", a conjoined arrestment order or a deduction from earnings order under the Child Support Act 1991".

(4) In section 55 (effect of discharge under section 54), in subsection (2)(d)—

(a) after "being" there shall be inserted "(i)";
(b) at the end there shall be inserted—

"or



(ii) child support maintenance within the meaning of the Child Support Act 1991 which was unpaid in respect of any period before the date of sequestration of—

(aa) any person by whom it was due to be paid; or
(bb) any employer by whom it was, or was due to be, deducted under section 30(5) of that Act.".'.

No. 92 in page 49, line 3, at end insert—
'(4A) In section 72 (effect of sequestration on diligence against earnings)—

(a) in subsection (2) after "order" there shall be inserted "or deduction from earnings order under the Child Support Act 1991";
(b) after subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
(3A) Any sum deducted by the employer under such a deduction from earnings order made before the date of sequestration shall be paid to the Secretary of State, notwithstanding that the date of payment will be after the date of sequestration.";

(c) after subsection (4) there shall be inserted—
(4A) A deduction from earnings order under the said Act shall not be competent after the date of sequestration to secure the payment of any amount due by the debtor under a maintenance assessment within the meaning of that Act in respect of which a claim could be made in the sequestration.".'.

No. 90, in page 49, line 20, at end insert—
'(6) In section 106 (interpretation) in the definition of "maintenance order"—

(a) the word "or" where it appears after paragraph (g), shall he omitted; and
(b) at the end there shall be inserted "or

(j) a maintenance assessment within the meaning of the Child Support Act 1991.".'.—[Mr. Jack.]

Order for Third Reading read—[Queen's Consent on behalf of the Crown, signified.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Boswell.]

Mr. Allen: We are coming to the end of a fairly speedy dispatch of the Bill. It is interesting that the Government are not prepared to put forward a defence on Third Reading. Perhaps the Minister will be inspired to make a few final remarks, having taken the Bill through Committee.
We started this trek a fairly long time ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), perhaps too generously as always, welcomed the Bill in principle. Perhaps he should have been more cautious, but, as it is in his nature to be generous, he was prepared to accept that the Government's general approach was to try to do something about a very difficult problem. That attitude and that generosity continued throughout the Committee stage. However, the more that we looked at the detail and examined the Bill in Committee, the more that we found flaws in practice. That was essentially because the Bill was the product of an off-the-cuff remark by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher)—now dearly departed. Her reach comes back from beyond the political grave to lumber Ministers such as those on the Front Bench tonight with a sad post-Thatcherite corpse which they had to parade through Committee and establish on the statute book.
As always, and as I have been told by my more senior colleagues, one should never make law on the wing. It is

always poor law. Poor law is an appropriate phrase in respect of the Bill. The key clause for which it will be remembered is what will become the infamous section 43. It made a bad Bill into a malicious Bill and a Bill which will punish individual mothers and children. That is the upshot of the parting shot of the right hon. Member for Finchley about penalising and pursuing fathers. Such statements strike an emotional chord in all of us. Fathers should live up to their responsibilities. However, in making law we must consider the effects on all children and all caring parents.
The speed with which the Bill came from the brain of the right hon. Member for Finchley to fruition—or almost to fruition—tonight has led us to a state in which we have legislated too quickly and we shall create many victims. Enforcement of maintenance orders was never going to be an easy area in which to legislate. It involves separations and deep emotional feelings such as love, hate, malice and greed. Any one of those human emotions would be enough to strike caution into legislators' hearts, but the Bill has proceeded too fast for those emotions to be considered.
Complicated issues are involved, such as why people separate and why the child lives with the caring parent rather than the absent parent. Such deeply complex motives cannot be considered in general when making law. They must be considered in the specific. That is why at the last gasp I asked the Minister to reconsider the punitive sanction that we are about to create which will be imposed on the caring parent if she refuses, undoubtedly for good reasons, to name the father.
The child support officer should have the discretion not to levy a fine of some £350 on the caring parent but to levy a different amount over a different period on a different percentage of income. We are not talking about people on substantial incomes. By definition we are talking about women with a child under the age of 11, who are lone parents and whose weekly income is £65·40. The people of whom we are speaking cannot easily pay back money they owe. That is why it is essential for child support officers to have flexibility. After all, someone else in the social security system will have to pick up the problems created by the fine imposed on the woman
.
Many examples have been cited by hon. Members. Consider the plight of those on income support who are obliged to pay back money they owe. We can argue about whether they are receiving a subsistence allowance, a poverty level wage, or whatever. Deductions will already have been taken from the small sum that they receive, yet the child support officer will not have the discretion to say, "In view of the large deductions already being made, we will stretch what is owed over a longer period, so reducing the percentage that we shall take from the amount of income support so that the person involved and the child do not suffer."
That lack of flexibility exposes the myth that the Bill is designed for the welfare of the child. It cannot be in the best interests of the child and mother if large sums of income support are taken away. Hon. Members have been given details of cases from the citizens advice bureaux, the NSPCC, one-parent family organisations and other pressure groups which have worked hard to introduce sense into the Bill. They have all explained how individuals could suffer because of the way in which that sanction will apply.
It was instructive for me, a newcomer, to examine the list of potential deductions from income support. I ask


hon. Members to imagine the plight of a woman receiving £65·40 a week. What deductions can be made from the meagre income support that she is receiving? The repayment of social fund loans can amount to 5, 10 or even 15 per cent. of her total weekly benefit. Imagine being a single parent trying to look after a child, needing every ounce of assistance that one can get for the basic necessities of life and being charged such sums.
Up to £2 can be taken out of income support each week to clear outstanding gas bill debts. The same applies to electricity debts, with another £2 being taken each week from income support, remembering that current bills must be paid also. For community charge arrears, another possible £2 a week could be taken. Remember, we are talking of individuals in receipt of £65·40 a week.
For rent arrears, up to £2 a week might be taken. The same applies to debts for water charges, and the current bill must also be paid. For mortgage arrears, £2 a week might be taken, with the current amount covered by income support having to be paid. Let us not forget overpayments. If one thought one had been fortunate enough to get a little more out of the system, and one is required to repay overpayments, one can be charged £5·95 a week.
I am not suggesting that someone would have run up debts for each of those services. But with £65·40 a week, being in debt in only two or three of those categories would be frightening if a flat rate fine were imposed because she had refused to name the father, whom she may not have seen for years, of whom she was afraid and who she did not want anywhere near the child.
There is no need for any of that to happen. We shall be training child support officers, hopefully with the sensitivity described by the Minister, to help single parents. Why not give them—according to the Minister, they will get very good training—the discretion to say, "It is nonsense to remove £8 from this woman and child in these circumstances. While we must implement the measure, we will fix the charge at £2, £3 or £4 a week because only that sum can be borne by her."
The legislature will have another bite at the Bill. I do not know whether it will be possible to amend it in another place. Perhaps we can do something when the regulations are introduced, or perhaps we shall be able to examine the way in which voluntary deductions are made. The Minister said many times in Committee that he wished it to operate with flexibility. Let us have flexibility at the sharp end, where the mother is in trouble and is with the child support officer and could be fined up to £8 a week, with a potential fine of £350. We are talking about people who are struggling at the bottom of the heap.
The Government appear not to have listened to anybody during the passage of the Bill. I quoted in Committee from a letter that appeared in The Times. I will not repeat it now. It listed the most eminent people in the field—voluntary organisations and others—who had said that the scheme would not work and would be punitive. Without exception, all the voluntary organisations operating in this area have said the same. Add to that the view of their Lordships, of the all-party Select Committee on Social Security, of the Law Society and of all who have taken an interest in this matter, and it is clear that this is not the way to proceed. Without discarding the principle

of the Bill, they say that clause 43 and the concept of fining a woman for refusing to name the father, probably for good reasons, is not the way to proceed. I urge the Government, even at this stage, to listen to those people. I suspect that their answer will be no.
We return to the origins of the Bill. The off-the-cuff remark by the right hon. Member for Finchley that we must pursue absent fathers was stimulated by the failure of the Department to maintain its complement of people who were pursuing maintenance. The rundown of staff in the Department, particularly of liable relative officers, was deplorable. It resulted in a problem being created to which the right hon. Member for Finchley invented a solution. Good and faithful servants are still labouring to drag that solution through the Palace of Westminster.
The Opposition will adhere to the principle that the responsibility for children rests with the parents, and their welfare will always be paramount in our consideration of these issues. The Bill accepts that principle, and in that sense we accept its main planks. But the practice through which clause 43 will operate makes a mockery of the principle that the child comes first.
In Government, we shall review the way in which the measure is working, will substitute incentives for punitive measures and will ensure that this legislation becomes what we all thought it meant when we first considered it and that the child's welfare will come first and foremost.

Mr. Hardy: I share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) about the Bill, which has many odious aspects. It seems to be another horse from the Finchley stable, similar to the one about which we heard a year or so ago when we were told of the merits in the Government's approach to sending investigators round to investigate social security fraud.
I pointed out that the cost of that exercise would not be much exceeded by the benefits that it secured. I said that the same resources devoted to the Inland Revenue to detect widespread tax evasion would yield an enormously greater harvest. I was told that there was a big difference: those who defraud social security are taking taxpayers' money, whereas tax dodgers merely try to keep their own.
The Government should understand that the Bill will involve substantial administrative costs, which could be better directed at securing a healthier and more substantial return to the taxpayer. However, I am less interested in the economics of the Bill than in its effect on children. Have the Government estimated the number of mothers, made even more desperate by this measure, who will decide to wash their hands of their children and leave them with the local authority social services department or the voluntary services? Has the Minister considered the matter in consultation with those who know about it in order to assess the additional burden that already hard-pressed local authority social services departments have to bear?
Whatever financial arrangements the Government make, children are sensitive and in thousands of cases their sensitivity willl be trampled upon by the arrangements in the clause. The Minister deliberately chose to misunderstand the point that I made during the last debate before Third Reading. I said that, in a substantial number of cases, the additional income that a woman takes in the form of maintenance from the father of her child may equal income support. She would then forfeit income


support and, in so doing, would forfeit the additonal benefits—my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North used the term "passported" benefits —that accompany income support. Her child would then lose benefits such as free meals and would run the risk of lower standards of living and nutrition.
This country is supposed to be more affluent than ever before, although many of us doubt that. Yet we tolerate people awarding themselves £300,000 or £400,000 a year, with increases of 50 per cent. or 100 per cent. over a 12-month period. It would be a disgrace to accept that it is necessary, in this year of grace, to plunge many children deeper into malnutrition. I hope that there will be a general election in October, because the values enshrined in the Bill should have no place in a civilised society.

Dr. Godman: I hope that the general election will be not in October but in November, because I am going on holiday in September.
I was the only Scottish Member who actively participated in scrutinising the Bill in Committee. If hon. Members will forgive my conceit, I had a 100 per cent. attendance record. I cannot say the same for the other Scottish Member of the Committee who chose not to speak on these important matters. Whether the Opposition like it or not, the Bill will receive Royal Assent and will then form part of the growing body of legislation, on both sides of the border, which, aims to protect the interests of children. As a Back Bencher who is not a lawyer, I have sought as best as I can to protect the interests of children in Scotland. In some respects, there are growing divergences in the body of legislation to which I referred. An example is the Criminal Justice Bill which, once enacted, will give remarkable protection to children caught up in sexual abuse cases. I bitterly regret that we have no identitical legislation in Scotland. Last year, I attempted to bring Scottish law into line with the Criminal Justice Bill, but the Scottish Office Minister refused to accept my suggestions.
Scotland is drifting away in terms of people's perceptions of the union, but that is another story. It is also drifting away with regard to the Children Act 1989. In several of the Committee's sittings, reference was made to that Act as though it applied to the United Kingdom, but it is confined to the children of England and Wales. The Children Act 1975, which deals also with Scotland, is nowhere near as comprehensive as the Children Act 1989.
The Bill will affect the lives of children in Scotland. Despite my 100 per cent. attendance record and the work that I put into the Bill, I have had little effect on it. Nevertheless, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), has reassured me today about the need to protect children when they are caught up in those appallingly distressing and difficult circumstances. I spoke earlier about the need for a safeguarder and the Under-Secretary assured me that, in Scotland, specialist training would be given to those involved in the Child Support Agency, the headquarters of which will be located in Falkirk. On behalf of the children and mothers caught up in those circumstances, I want an assurance that the officials employed in that agency throughout the United Kingdom will be chosen extremely carefully. They must be given adequate training so that they can interview

comprehensively children, and mothers who may be deeply afraid of physical retribution from estranged partners.
In Committee I gave three examples of young mothers, each with two children, who were caught up in those dreadful circumstances. They had appalling personal histories as victims of domestic violence. Because of what had happened to them in the past, the small number of women who are caught up in those tragic circumstances would hestitate long before they gave the names and addresses of their erstwhile partners. Given the fact that the Bill will be enacted very shortly, may I make a plea that those women, who number between 40 and 50 in my constituency, be treated with the utmost compassion within the framework of this disgraceful element of the Bill. I hope that when child support officers look for reasonable evidence of fear, threats and violence, they will not necessarily expect to find physical evidence of what has taken place. Instead, they should look for evidence of what may take place if they give the evidence required by the child support officer. That is why it is essential that, when selecting and training child support officers, we find the best. In some respects, we already have them in Scotland in some local Department of Social Security offices, despite my occasional complaints relating to incidents involving my constituents.
It is of paramount importance that, when the agency is set up, from top to bottom its staff are committed to the welfare of children—nothing less will do. That is what we are concerned about. The staff must also have a deep understanding of the domestic circumstances of these women caught up in dealings with the Child Support Agency and officers.
There is a growing body of law which I call child care law. Despite my earlier criticisms, we have some superb examples of that in Scotland. There is the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, which was steered through the House by the late Willie Ross and Bruce Millan, and other Acts that almost match that superb piece of child care law. The 1968 Act contains other provisions, but I am talking about its child care sections.
In some respects, the Child Support Bill is something of an aberration. It is right and proper that absent parents match and honour their obligations. I have one last plea, which I have made twice before: if a small number of men are to be imprisoned for more than six weeks, we should consider placing such miscreants in prison at the weekends. They should turn up at Barlinnie, Saughton or Perth on Friday evening after they have clocked off work or whatever they do these days, and be let out on Monday morning or Sunday evening, so that if they are in work they do not lose their employment. The small number of men who go to prison should be treated sensibly and realistically. If they go to prison, they should be put in the nick for the weekend. That is an important consideration and should be borne in mind when the Minister introduces regulations.

Mr. Jack: It is always a relief to come to the end of a piece of parliamentary legislation, but this is the end of only one part of what I think will be a star-studded show, because the second part will deal with the introduction of the regulations. I hope that in the debates in Standing Committee and in the House this evening I have reassured


right hon. and hon. Members that the Government will continue to listen, consult and think hard about the information that we receive about such a deeply sensitive but important matter. We have acknowledged, and continue to acknowledge, that there is no monopoly of wisdom on the subject, and we are certainly always pleased to learn.
It would be churlish of me not to give one or two words of tribute, and I shall start with those involved in introducing the start of the legislation—the White Paper, "Children Come First". Sometimes, it is with trepidation that we mention the people whom we should not mention, but they know who I mean—the Department officials who have worked not only on the White Paper but on the Bill. I know that they have the profound appreciation and thanks of all the Ministers involved for the way in which they have worked, sometimes under considerable pressure, to produce what was a good Bill when it started and is now immeasurably improved as a result of our deliberations in Standing Committee and in the House. Much of this would not have happened had it not been for the fundamental belief in the policy of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, who I am delighted to see on the Front Bench this evening.
In Standing Committee, we considered in detail many parts of the Bill. I pay tribute to the hon. Members for Eccles (Miss Lestor) and for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) for their contribution and their probing of our policy, which was important and made us think. We have shown, by the way that we have responded, that we listened. We have also listened to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), who, in a short time, has taught me more about Scotland than I thought possible. He was right to advert to his attendance record in Standing Committee. Other Opposition Members would envy the number of times that he was able to join his few other hon. Friends on the Committee.
We have heard Opposition Members comment on points of detail. If I misunderstood the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), I apologise. I now understand the point that he was making, but it is important that he realises that, if maintenance boosts the income of a parent with care by providing additional resources—taking them from benefit—in essence, that merely restores the position that that person might formerly have enjoyed within his or her relationship. Clearly, the expenses related to the child would have been borne by the couple involved in the former relationship. If someone no longer receives income support or benefit, he or she may no longer receive some social security benefits, but the position will have returned to the status quo.
Part of the Bill's package includes amendments to family credit to assist women who wish to return to the labour market. Those benefits include many means of assisting lone parents, who will receive the same rate as two-parent families in terms of the family premium. In addition, school meals were included at the inception of the benefit. Those two examples show that the measures are not as draconian as the hon. Member for Wentworth said.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, North talked about benefit deduction. I shall seek to reassure him, if that is possible, that any reduction of benefit—I think that he was

referring specifically to income support—falls within the overall limit of 15 per cent. I spent some time in Committee talking in detail about the order in which deductions would take place, and I refer the hon. Gentleman to those detailed remarks.
In his somewhat grudging concluding remarks, the hon. Member for Nottingham, North suggested that we might be on the defensive. The Government can be positive about what they genuinely believe is an extremely good, well-thought-out package. He did not mention the Bill's provisions in relation to providing maintenance for children. Only at the end of his remarks did he refer to the quintessence of the Bill—putting children first.
In terms of maintenance, the Bill has replaced uncertainty with certainty. It has a clear objective to gain maintenance for children, which is to be followed up by the Child Support Agency. We have replaced the inconsistency of the old system—I am sure that Opposition Members could not support its retention—with an element of consistency. For the first time, we shall have a stated formula and process for the recovery of maintenance for the benefit of children. I believe that we have replaced irresponsibility with responsibility.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, North failed to say that, 10 years ago, only 50 per cent. of maintenance orders were honoured. That figure has now dropped to 30 per cent. and, for those on income support, to only 23 per cent. That shows how responsibility has been shuffled away to the taxpayer, who has had to pick up the bill to the tune of £400 million. The Bill seeks to redress that imbalance.
Opposition Members continually chide the Government to improve the social security system. I am delighted to be standing at the Dispatch Box talking about increases in child benefit, as I also did some days ago. The money to pay for those provisions does not, as Opposition Members often imagine, grow on trees. It comes from the sensible allocation of resources available within the social security budget. The Bill will result in rebalancing £400 million of taxpayers' money. That is a good thing. It will assist the further development of the social security system.
The Bill brings into being a fine agency that is dedicated to the sensitive task that it must undertake. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North chided us for not listening, but a little recess reading of the White Paper will demonstrate to him how far the Government have moved to meet the representations of many highly respected voluntary bodies. We said initially that people would be allowed not to co-operate in cases of rape and incest only. However, we quickly moved to take into account domestic violence. We then went further and recognised harm and undue distress as reasons for non co-operation.
In many ways the agency is a buffer between the parent with care and the difficult world in which she lived before her relationship broke up. The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow talked about evidence. It might be difficult to produce the kind of evidence that a court of law requires, but there is a presumption on someone to be believed. That is the greatest defence available to any individual before they face the possibility of a benefit sanction. The exercise of that sanction is meant to signal that seeking to secure maintenance and benefit for one's child—exercising that responsibility—is not an optional extra. A parent with care has a responsibility to her child to secure the necessary resources so that, should that


parent return to work, those resources would represent a genuine addition to the family budget, to the benefit of the child.
The receipt of maintenance is possible through co-operation. If someone chooses not to co-operate—she may have good reason—we will have given them every option to co-operate and every chance to reconsider their position. If someone chooses that action, it means that a benefit sanction is applied, but that sanction can be stopped immediately through co-operation.
It appeared from the speech of the hon. Member for Eccles that the Opposition wanted us to have a strong association with the Australian system of social security. Under that system all benefits are removed in the event of non co-operation, yet the Opposition strongly favour the Australian system. I am sure that that has not gone unnoticed in the House and outside.
I hope that we have demonstrated our good intentions under the Bill. We shall finance the agency with the appropriate resources to do its work. It will draw on the best of information technology and on a resource structure unparalleled in terms of information to seek out the absent parent with care. Above all, the Bill will have as its motto putting children first in all that it does.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

That Standing Order No. 130 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended

in line 3, by inserting after the word 'departments', the word 'as';

in line 6, by inserting at the end the words '(excluding the expenditure, administration and policy of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Northern Ireland).';

in the Table by leaving out the words—


'3. Education, Science and Arts
Department of Education and Science
11
3'


and inserting the words—


'3. Education, Science and Arts
Department of Education and Science; Office of Arts and Libraries
13
3';


by leaving out the words—


'9. Home Affairs
Home Office
11
3'


and inserting the words—

Standing Orders (Amendments)

[Relevant documents: Second Report from the Select Committee on Procedure of Session 1989–90, on The Working of the Select Committee System, House of Commons Paper No. 19-I, and the Government's response, Cm. 1532.]

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move,
That Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) be amended by inserting at the end of line 38 the words—
'(e) proceedings on a Motion such as is referred to in paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 104 (Nomination of select committees) for the nomination or discharge of members of select committees appointed under Standing Order No. 130 (Select committees related to government departments) which has been opposed at or after the interruption of business on a preceding day:
Provided that any questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings on such a Motion shall be put at Eleven o'clock or one hour after the commencement of those proceedings, whichever is the later.'

Mr. Speaker: I understand that it will be for the convenience of the House if we also discuss motion No. 3—
That—
Standing Order No. 122 (Committee of Public Accounts) be amended by adding at the end of the words—

'(3) The Committee shall have power to communicate to any committee appointed under Standing Order No. 130 (Select committees related to government departments) such evidence as it may have received from the National Audit Office (having been agreed between that Office and the government department or departments concerned) but which has not been reported to the House'; and
Standing Order No. 130 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended by inserting in line 33, after the word 'committee', the words 'and to the Committee of Public Accounts.'—
and motion No. 4—

'9. Home Affairs
Home Office; policy, administration and expenditure of the Lord Chancellor's Departments (including the work of staff provided for the administrative work of courts and tribunals, but excluding consideration of individual cases and appointments); and administration and expenditure of the Attorney General's Office, the Treasury Solicitor's Department, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office (but excluding individual cases and appointments and advice given within government by Law Officers)';
11
3


by leaving out the words—


'10. Scottish Affairs
Scottish Office
13
5'


and inserting the words—


'10. Scottish Affairs
Scottish Office; and administration and expenditure of the Lord Advocate's Departments, together with policy functions discharged by the Lord Advocate through the Scottish Courts Administration, but excluding consideration of individual cases and appointments, advice given within government by Scottish Law Officers, and the drafting of bills';
13
5


by leaving out the words—


'14. Treasury and Civil Service
Treasury, Management and Personnel Office, Board of Inland Revenue, Board of Customs and Excise'
11
3


and inserting the words—


'14. Treasury and Civil Service
Treasury, Office of the Minister for the Civil Service (but excluding the drafting of bills by the Parliamentary Counsel Office), Board of Inland Revenue, Board of Customs and Excise';
11
3

in line 12, by inserting at the beginning the words 'The Education, Science and Arts Committee (in respect of matters relating to science and technology principally within the responsibilities of the Department of Education and Science or an associated public body)';

and by leaving out lines 15 to 20.

I have selected the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux).

Mr. Macgregor: I welcome the opportunity to lay the amendments before the House. The Select Committee on Procedure carried out a valuable and comprehensive review of the Select Committee system, which was the first parliamentary inquiry into the present system that was established in 1979.
The Government are pleased to note the general response of the Procedure Committee, which is that the system has stood up to scrutiny and is basically sound and that there is no need for major reform. There will, of course, always be a need for minor adjustments to reflect changing circumstances. We welcome and accept most of the recommendations addressed to the Government. I shall not concern myself in this speech with those recommendations addressed to Committees or to the House generally.
The Government have already acted on two recommendations. The new Health and Social Services Select Committees are up and running and we had a debate on 1 May on the parliamentary and health service commissioners.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow): I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for showing his characteristic courtesy in giving way. Has any concern been expressed about the failure of the Government to create or recreate in the House the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs?

Mr. MacGregor: I have been asked about that from time to time by hon. Members with a particular interest in the matter. I have already said that I see no prospect of making any progress on the matter in the House during the current Session for the reasons that have been well advanced in earlier debates. It is not intended that that matter should be addressed on the motions before us tonight.
I propose to act on the recommendations that the Government have accepted. I shall deal briefly with each of the motions, which the House will have already seen referred to in detail in the Select Committee report and the Government's response to it. You said, Mr. Speaker, that it would be convenient to take the three motions together, and I shall deal with them as they appear on the Order Paper.
The first motion relates to an amendment to Standing Order No. 14 concerned with the replacement of members. The Committee recommended:
Where a motion discharging one member and/or appointing another is opposed, any subsequent proceedings on that motion at a later date should be dealt with within one hour.
The Government support that recommendation and the amendment provides for that.
The second motion relates to amendments to Standing Order No. 122 and to Standing Order No. 130. The amendments deal with the role of the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee. I should like to deal with those amendments in greater detail. The proposed amendments will enable the PAC to pass to departmental Select Committees unpublished memoranda submitted to it by the Comptroller and Auditor General and the National Audit Office which have been agreed by Departments.
It is appropriate for the PAC to control the passing of such information. The amendments will also allow the departmental Committees to pass papers to the PAC. It is not appropriate to set out every detail of the way in which that will work under the Standing Orders. The Government's response pointed out that it was essentially for the House to decide how it should deal with any NAO report. The Government agree with the Procedure Committee's view that only a few carefully chosen cases should be handled by the departmental Select Committees following agreement with the NAO and the PAC. I am glad to note that the Chairman of the PAC, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), is in his place as he and I have discussed this proposal in some detail.
The Government agree completely that the PAC should not scrutinise policy matters. The PAC, as recognised in Standing Order No. 122, has a unique role in examining Departments on their accounts and value for money. I pay tribute to the work of the PAC in that respect and to its current Chairman.
The departmental Select Committees can look more widely at policy, but, insofar as much of their work relates to administration and expenditure, they would be assisted by NAO reports. They already have the right to take up published material.
The Procedure Committee was careful to state the caveats under which it saw assistance being given to Select Committees by the NAO. I have discussed that matter with my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Procedure Committee and, as I have said on a number of occasions, I am grateful to him and his Committee for the work that they have done.
The Government's response has set out understandings that would prevent NAO reports from being discussed in an uncontrolled way or the NAO being drawn into policy. That is an important point with which I know the Chairman of the PAC is concerned. Our response makes it clear that the NAO would not give substantive oral evidence beyond any necessary explanation of its reports.
The Procedure Committee proposed, and the Government accepted, subject to the procedures mentioned, that there should be liaison between the Chairman of the Liaison Committee, the Chairman of the PAC and the Comptroller and Auditor General to see how NAO

resources could help the departmental Committees without prejudicing the main thrust of the work of the NAO for the PAC.
The arrangements should not be interpreted as giving the departmental Select Committees any powers over the NAO. As the Procedure Committee recognised, under the National Audit Act 1983, the Comptroller and Auditor General has complete discretion in carrying out his functions. He is not under any obligation to take account of suggestions from departmental Select Committees when determining his programme of studies as he is with suggestions from the PAC. I hope and believe that, with the good will of all sides, these arrangements can be made to work.
As for Standing Order No. 130 and the third group of amendments, this contains tidying-up arrangements for Departments, covered in the table in Standing Order No. 130(2). There are two aspects to which I wish to draw particular attention. The first is the scrutiny of the Law Officers' Departments. The suggestion that there should be some form of scrutiny of these Departments is not new. It was put forward by the Procedure Committee in 1977–78, but it was not accepted on the ground that it could threaten the independence of the judiciary. The current Procedure Committee proposed that all matters that lay within the responsibilities of the various Law Officers, but excluding consideration of the merits of individual cases, should come under the scrutiny of the Home Affairs or Scottish Affairs Committees, as appropriate. The Government were sympathetic to the thought behind the proposal but were unable to go as far as the Procedure Committee would have liked, for several reasons. I shall refer only to a few of them.
Although the Lord Chancellor's Department provides the staff and the administration for the courts service, the courts themselves are not part of the Department. The wording of the amendment is identical to the extension of the Public Accounts Committee's jurisdiction in the same area under the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. I hope that that will be acceptable.
Also, the exclusion of individual judicial appointments reflects the personal responsibility of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Advocate for these matters, but the Committees will be free to examine the appointments system as a whole. It is important, too, that the independence of the various prosecuting authorities from political influence should be reflected. The Committees will be excluded, therefore, from examining prosecution policy. I believe however, that what we are proposing in the amendments represents a considerable step forward. It means that a significant area of government hitherto unavailable for Committee scrutiny can now be examined. I hope, therefore, that the House will accept the proposal.

Dr. Godman: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Scottish Select Committee. What is the point of amending Standing Order No. 130 to make changes to the Scottish Select Committee if the Government, with their Back Benchers, refuse to set up such a Committee?

Mr. MacGregor: If eventually we are able to make progress on that matter, we shall be able to accept the Procedure Committee's recommendation.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Am I to take it, therefore, that the exclusion in line 6—


`"(excluding the expenditure, administration and policy of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Northern Ireland),"'
is because that will be referred to the Home Affairs Committee? Alternatively, is there to be no scrutiny? If a Northern Ireland Select Committee is to be set up, am Ito take it that that matter could be referred to the Committee or, due to the fact that the courts service is part of the Lord Chancellor's Department, would it still be dealt with in the Home Affairs Committee?

Mr. MacGregor: To answer the hon. Gentleman's second point first, that would not be the case. As for his main point—why the Director of Public Prosecutions is excluded —there are a number of considerations, one of which is that no request was made for Select Committee scrutiny of the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland. That is why the terms of reference do not include him. There is no Crown prosecution service as such in Northern Ireland. That is an important point in relation to scrutiny because, unlike his counterpart in England and Wales who heads a staff of some 5,500 in the Crown prosecution service, the responsibilities of the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland in relation to administration and expenditure, which is what we are talking about, are very small. That is the reason for his exclusion.
Another aspect of this group of amendments to Standing Order No. 130 relates to the Science and Technology Sub-Committee. The Procedure Committee recommended either a Joint Committee with the House of Lords, or reconsideration of an earlier request by the Education Committee for two additional members and the power to appoint a Sub-Committee. The Government were prepared to accept the second recommendation. The Standing Order now provides for it.
I hope that I have adequately explained the Standing Orders changes. To a large extent, they implement the Procedure Committee's recommendations. Accordingly, I recommend them to the House.

Mr. Stanley Orme: The Opposition accept the proposed amendments. We know that a great deal of discussion took place, not least with my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. My right hon. Friend was as concerned as we were that the Comptroller and Auditor General should not become involved in political matters as the Comptroller's job is to report to the Public Accounts Committee in an unfettered way about Government expenditure and he ought not to be involved in the political hurly-burly in which Members of Parliament obviously and rightly are involved. We feel, therefore, that the Procedure Committee's recommendations are sensible. They tighten and strengthen the position. We therefore welcome this development.
I understand the anxiety of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) about the Scottish Select Committee, and we are extremely disappointed that it has not been set up. The Leader of the

House is aware that we shall continue to press that issue. My hon. Friends north of the border have strong feelings about it. That point has been made again this evening.
The Leader of the House has carefully explained these sensible proposals to the House, and I therefore ask my hon. Friends to accept them.

Mr. James Molyneaux: The Leader of the House paid tribute at the beginning of his speech to the efficiency of the Chairman of the Procedure Committee and to its members. He suggested how easy it is to establish yet another Select Committee. Those of us who watched the smooth division of the old Health and Social Services Select Committee give the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure full marks for the efficient way in which that operation was carried out, in co-operation with the Leader of the House and his predecessor.
In my reply to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure dated 8 February 1990 I expressed satisfaction with the existing coverage of Northern Ireland by the various Select Committees, such as Agriculture, Health, Social Security, Energy and Trade and Industry —just as happens for Scotland. In the second paragraph of my letter I said:
There ought to be a Northern Ireland Select Committee dealing with those matters for which the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is responsible, but for which there is no counterpart in Great Britain, e.g. implementation of the Anglo-Irish Agreement 1985, and the political direction of security.
That alone is a very heavy responsibility.
In another letter to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure, dated 22 May 1990, I said:
Thank you for your letter of 15 May about the proposal for a Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. Such a body would be a great asset to the people of Northern Ireland, extending as it would to their affairs the same scrutiny as is provided for the rest of the United Kingdom. In our view, the establishment of a Northern Ireland Select Committee should not be delayed for the invalid reason that some day a structure of Government may be invented for Northern Ireland.
My case was powerfully supported by the Select Committee in its second report, particularly in paragraphs 272 to 278:
Accordingly, whilst we do not believe that the uncertainties over the future administration of the Province can be allowed to preclude indefinitely the establishment of proper arrangements for the scrutiny by the House of the Northern Ireland Department, we accept that this would not be a sensible moment to recommend the establishment of a Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. Nevertheless, we consider that the Government cannot postpone dealing with this matter for very much longer and we will keep the position under review.
Then there is the key sentence:
We may well wish to return to it once the outcome of the current talks is clear.
We have now reached that point. That obstacle was removed by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in his statement to the House on 3 July, when he said:
I concluded that the talks should therefore be brought to an end. I have also been in touch with the Irish Government to recount my conclusion."—[Official Report, 3 July 1991; Vol. 194, c. 319.]
It is therefore not a matter of opinion, or of what this or that newspaper says. We respect the Secretary of State's decision, which was made for reasons best known to him and which he announced to the four party leaders in private.
Regardless of the fact that the talks have been brought to an end by Her Majesty's Government, it must be recognised that, even if the talks had succeeded, there would still have been an unanswerable case for a Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs because there would remain a wide range of responsibilities which would never, in any circumstances, be devolved to any Northern Ireland Assembly or Government. The responsibilities that will remain with any Secretary of State for Northern Ireland bite deeply into the financial subvention voted by Parliament. As the House will be aware, and as you wisely remind us, Mr. Speaker, those vast sums are not debatable in the debates on Northern Ireland appropriation. However, Parliament has a duty to scrutinise that expenditure and the policies that govern it. That is a reason why there must be a Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. So long as there is not, the Northern Ireland Office is the only major Department of State not required to give an account of its stewardship.
I notice that in some of the submissions to the Select Committee on Procedure there were vague hints that the agreement of all parties in Northern Ireland would be desirable before any such step could be taken. A curious feature of the governance of Northern Ireland is that, although all-party agreement seems to be a pre-requisite for some policies, on the many occasions when the Northern Ireland parties in the House are united in opposition to important policies and proposals, the Northern Ireland Office employs a three-line Whip to crush the opposition of all 16 Northern Ireland Members of Parliament speaking with one voice and voting in the same Lobby. On the issue of a Select Committee to provide effective scrutiny, how can any party or any individual Member of Parliament justify opposing such a reasonable step? Such a step could not possibly disadvantage any Northern Ireland citizen, but could do only good.
The sensitive subject of a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs has already been touched upon. The Select Committee on Scottish Affairs was first set up in 1979 and the then Leader of the House, now Lord St. John of Fawsley, referred to talks that he had arranged with the political parties in Scotland to discuss improvements in the government of Scotland, unrelated to the Select Committee. On 31 October 1979 he said:
I was further pressed in June to agree that the establishment of a Committee on Scottish affairs should not await the outcome of these talks. The motions are intended to meet what I believe to be the wishes of the House in the meantime. They therefore provide for a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs with similar membership and orders of reference to those of the other Committees which the House has already agreed should be established."—[Official Report, 31 October 1979; Vol. 972, c. 1282.]
I note that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has been consulted by the Select Committee on Procedure. He conceded in principle that Northern Ireland should have a Select Committee, but he was not exactly enthusiastic, and I do not blame him. What head of Department would be joyful at being told that he is to have a Select Committee imposed upon him? Did not all the heads of Department in 1979 fight like tigers against the St. John-Stevas plan? I am not suggesting that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is any different from the other heads of Department. What Department in its right mind would embrace the prospect of being sent for? The Secretary of State for Wales told the House yesterday, uncomplainingly, of his experience early yesterday when,

to use his words, he had to endure a three-hour interrogation by the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. He seemed to enjoy it.
It would be doing an injustice to the present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and his ministerial colleagues if I were to imply that for merely personal reasons they would seek to obstruct what is now the widely held view of the Procedure Committee and the widely-recognised view on both sides of the House that there is a need for such a Select Committee. I think that Ministers at the Northern Ireland Office would share the view expressed by a former distinguished Member of this House, Sir David Renton, who said, in February 1979:
Any Minister or future Minister who is worth his salt should welcome the chance to co-operate with a small group of hon. Members who are taking a critical but constructive interest in the work of his Department."—[Official Report, 19 February 1979; Vol. 963, c. 51.]
I have sufficient faith in the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and his fellow Ministers to rest my case on Sir David's words.

Sir Peter Emery: I start by doing something that I think that all hon. Members would wish to do and that is to congratulate the Leader of the House on bringing these motions before us as quickly and efficiently as he has done, not just once but on three occasions in this Session. I hope that he will continue that record and we thank and applaud him for it.
I shall discuss four different topics. The first concerns the recommendation of the Procedure Committee and the addition to Standing Order No. 122 which could allow departmental Select Committees to use the manpower of the National Audit Office in any consideration by the NAO that relates to an inquiry being undertaken by a Select Committee. I stress the fact—many hon. Members might not realise this—that the Auditor General is an Officer of the House. He is not an external civil servant. It seems right that the Chairman of a departmental Select Committee, with his staff, in co-operation with the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, should check whether work being done by the Auditor General's Department is relevant to any inquiry being undertaken by that departmental Select Committee. I stress, as did the Leader of the House, that our recommendations were not intended to undermine or reduce the powers of the Public Accounts Committee. It would be a great mistake if anyone suggested that, and I want that to be clearly understood.
Secondly, we accept immediately that it would be wrong of any departmental Select Committee to try to make the Auditor General a political animal, although the judgments made by departmental Select Committees might be such.
Decisions must be taken purely on the basis of factual information that the Auditor General might have of a report on which a departmental Select Committee is working. To ensure that that was the case, we recommended—as does the Standing Order—that the Public Accounts Committee should have a veto. Only with the co-operation of the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee—I see no reason why that co-operation would not be given readily—can that come about.
We therefore recommended to the Chairmen of the departmental Select Committees that at the start of any


inquiry—and preferably at the beginning of the year—they should be able to consult the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and the Auditor General to see whether their programmes or any ideas that had been raised were relevant to any inquiry that the Auditor General might consider undertaking. There should be no influence on the Auditor General. He makes his own decisions and the Public Accounts Committee knows only too well what he thinks needs to be examined. His independence is in no way to be limited or altered. Therefore, I hope that in the light of our statements the Chairmen of the departmental Select Committees will be able to operate what I believe could be a helpful—not revolutionary—addition to the work of our departmental Select Committees.
I refer to Standing Order No. 130. I know from conversations with the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs that he welcomes the amendments that have been proposed. We understand why one of our suggestions has not been carried out and, although we did not say so, I do not think that it was the intention of the Procedure Committee that appointments should be investigated. It was perhaps an error that we did not make that clear, but certainly it would be nonsensical and it was not our intention.
There are two other issues relating to departmental Select Committees. My Committee is sorry that there is not a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. Earlier this week I was invited to give evidence to the Lords Select Committee on Procedure. I was asked whether in the absence of a Scottish departmental Select Committee it would be helpful if their Lordships considered undertaking the work. I replied that it was not for me to make such a judgment but that it might be a way out of an impasse. It is certainly an issue that is being considered in another place, although it was not my suggestion.

Dr. Godman: In the deeply disturbing absence of a Scottish Select Committee, someone such as myself would look with some sympathy on that temporary solution to an appalling problem.

Sir Peter Emery: The suggestion was made to me using the word "temporary", so perhaps that suggestion might be a helpful way out of an impasse.
On Northern Ireland, I understand the views expressed by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux). This is one time when we can do a little debating between speeches. I understand his concern and I do not think that there is any hon. Member who would not do so. The Procedure Committee was not more specific because we believed that it would have been wrong if a recommendation made by us acted in any way against the possibility of a settlement to the discussions which were then taking place.

Mr. Molyneaux: They have ended.

Sir Peter Emery: The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley says that they have now come to an end, but there has not been enough time for us to reconsider the issue.

Rev. Martin Smyth: rose——

Sir Peter Emery: I shall give way in a moment.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley is wrong to say that no Secretary of State would welcome the setting up of a Select Committee to investigate his Department. All the evidence suggested that there was initially some objection, but the Ministers who gave evidence said without exception that such Committees were helpful and useful and that, they would not want to abandon them. I believe that in due course all the activities of Departments responsible to the Crown need to be examined by departmental Select Committees.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but does he accept that for 20 years we have missed such scrutiny and that, even before the abrogation of the Northern Ireland Parliament, it would have been beneficial to the House had there been such a Committee? I appreciate that in those days there was no such Committee, but if there is a Northern Ireland Assembly in future there will be a need for scrutiny by the House of the affairs of the Northern Ireland Office to deal with aspects of government and business there. Does he accept that it is wrong that a Northern Ireland Committee is not included on the list of Select Committees? Perhaps one reason why such a Committee is listed for Scotland and yet does not exist is that at least one party in Scotland does not want to be a party to it. However, that is no reason why the Northern Ireland Committee should not be listed as a Select Committee.

Sir Peter Emery: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says and I am sure that his comments will have been noted by the Leader of the House. I must make two points. First, it has not been 20 years—it would have been set up only in 1980, which is only 11 years. Secondly, I repeat what the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley said. He made it clear that aspects of health, agriculture and trade and industry in Northern Ireland are dealt with by the respective Select Committees. I know that, having served on the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. It is not the case that Northern Ireland receives no consideration, but I accept that it does not have its own departmental Select Committee.
I deal now with the Education, Science and Arts Sub-Committee. I welcome the fact that that Committee is to be ordered to consider science and technology in a way that it has not previously done. There have been two reports on science and technology among all the reports emanating from that Committee. I hope that the Leader of the House and the usual channels, in conjunction with the Committee of Selection, will ensure that the two additional members of the Committee are, if not scientists, people with a particular interest in science and technology and that they will specialise in those subjects in their work in the Committee.
I am sorry that the Government have not seen fit to establish a joint science and technology committee in partnership with the House of Lords, which would, I think, have been a better solution. The two new members need to be specialists in science and technology, rather than educationists. Most members of the main Committee will be interested only in education matters.
Finally, let me mention something that does not appear on the Order Paper, which has been described as a matter for the Committee of Selection. I refer to the appointment of departmental Select Committees at the start of a new parliamentary Session. It is absurd that that should be


delayed by eight, 10 or 12 weeks. Our Clerks are present, and have nothing to do; all the necessary structure is there. It is not good enough to argue that it is not always certain that Committee members will be able to serve for the whole year. I realise that the Labour party may elect its members to certain positions, and that it may not be known whether those people will be free to serve on a Committee; but we are not children. Members who assume other offices can be replaced.
I have only one criticism of what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. It is not fair to suggest that matters should be left to the Selection Committee, which will be keen to co-operate with the usual channels and others. I appeal to my right hon. Friend and to the two Chief Whips—one of whom I see on the Opposition Front Bench, distinguished as ever—to try to ensure that the Committees are set up as early as possible after the opening of a new Session. Their membership can be changed thereafter if necessary, but let us get on and start the work rather than delaying for week after week.
Let me again congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on presenting the motions so promptly.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: I welcome the considered fashion in which the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) presented the Procedure Committee's attitude to the Public Accounts Committee. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) for his contribution.
It is some 130 years since the Public Accounts Committee was set up and the precursor of the National Audit Office—the Exchequer and Audit Department—was established. It was a peculiar decision to invest an individual with almost unfettered power to discover what was going on in Government Departments; only that hallowed period of 130 years has enabled the arrangement to continue. We are dealing with a rare instrument, and one that has been of enormous value. I know of no other legislative body that allows such an operation, although some Commonwealth Parliaments have similar arrangements. This delicate issue is what concerns me most.
The Comptroller and Auditor General brings reports to us, we look at them, and he distils the contents for us. In order not to compromise him, we deliberately exclude matters involving policy. We see him at least twice a week and, if we pressed him unduly, we could find out quite a bit more. We cannot exclude the reports themselves, however. We look at them in terms of value for money, which no other body can do.
We see permanent secretaries and other top civil servants again and again. We are able to assess them and correct their mistakes, and we can compare what they do with what they said that they were going to do. This year, we are producing 45 reports. No one else could summon up the same expertise without going about the process in the same way.
We are all politicians, and we know that a politician's main interest is in influencing policy and ensuring that it meets the needs of the moment, as he sees them. It is, of course, the easiest thing in the world to press someone who has as much access to information as the Comptroller and Auditor General. As the hon. Member for Honiton

pointed out, the Comptroller and Auditor General is an Officer of the House, following an initiative on the part of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett). Unfortunately, my hon. Friend is ill, but he would have been delighted to participate in today's debate. He feels strongly that the crucial role of the Comptroller and Auditor General must not be impugned in any way.
The Comptroller and Auditor General has information that a number of Select Committee members would like to use for political purposes. Here we come to the heart of the problem. The National Audit Act 1983 states:
The Comptroller and Auditor General shall have a right of access at all reasonable times to all such documents as he may reasonably require".
If a Minister or his civil servants know that the information will go to a Select Committee that will take evidence from that Minister, "reasonably require" may start to have a different connotation. That would be of enormous disadvantage to the House, which must endeavour to control expenditure, obtain value for money and ensure that the economy, efficiency and effectiveness whose maintenance is the PAC's chief task remain unfettered.
I do not believe that work can be expanded, even in a small way, without some cost being incurred. The cost of the National Audit Office is tightly controlled by the Public Accounts Commission, whose chairman also feels strongly about the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General, but any expansion will have cost implications. It is not simply a question of transferring information.

Sir Peter Emery: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to mislead the House in regard to the Procedure Committee. It was never envisaged, however, that the Comptroller and Auditor General should appear before any departmental Select Committee; the Committees were intended only to examine the papers. We never intended the Comptroller and Auditor General to be cross-questioned by, for instance, members of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, and I do not think that that should happen.

Mr. Sheldon: I am delighted to hear it. That is enormously important. I was also pleased by what the hon. Gentleman said about the discretion of the Comptroller and Auditor General remaining untouched. On many occasions, a PAC Chairman might think of suggesting that a certain examination should be conducted, or even pressing for such an examination.
Committee members can, of course, make suggestions: the National Audit Act allows that. But it is vital that the Comptroller and Auditor General continues to have that unfettered right. His post was set up largely to deal with fraud and corruption. Many other countries ask how we are able to appoint someone like the Comptroller and Auditor General. I tell them that we have high standards in the civil service, and that everything stops in the face of the need to deal with fraud and corruption. Luckily we do not have much of it. Not much of it comes to us, so it does not take up a great deal of our time. When I hear about the experiences of representatives of many other countries, I can only express my pleasure and satisfaction that we do not share them.
The members of the PAC are unanimous on the need to maintain the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General. The Chairman of the PAC, the hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern), and my hon. Friend the Member for


Norwich, South feel strongly about that. The comments of the hon. Member for Honiton pleased me, for he clarified several matters. I hope that we shall be able to deal with the proposed amendments with good sense and in a reasonable way.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) on the comprehensive report that his Committee, the Procedure Committee, has produced on the work of the Select Committee system. The report is kind to the system and to those who operate within it. It describes the arrangements as "worth while", a "success", "valuable" and "cost effective". I share the view that the reforms of a decade or so ago have been of immense value to the House in restoring something of the balance between the Executive and the House.
The reforms have certainly increased the level of ministerial accountability. We all know that it is not always easy to pin down a Minister when he is replying to a debate. Perhaps it is even more difficult to pin him down when he is answering parliamentary questions when, despite all your efforts, Mr. Speaker, one inevitably moves from one subject to another rather quickly. That is vastly different from a Minister's experience when appearing for two hours or more before a Select Committee, the proceedings of which are conducted on an all-party basis. On such an occasion the Minister concerned can be held to account much more specifically. The system has undoubtedly been a success.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on responding to some of the recommendations of the Procedure Committee and in putting before the House the amendments that we are considering.
At the end of his remarks, my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton talked about the nomination of the Select Committees in a new Parliament. That is a matter of the gravest concern, because at the start of a new Parliament there is no one in a position to speak on behalf of the Select Committees because they have not been appointed. About a year is available between now and the next Parliament, and I hope that during that time we shall consider whether there is a formal way in which we could impose a time limit —perhaps by way of Standing Order—to ensure that Select Committees are set up within a reasonable time, and certainly within a much shorter time than that which passed at the beginning of the present Parliament.
I welcome especially the amendment designed to increase the scope of the Select Committee on Home Affairs in terms of the Law Officers. I see that the Chairman of that Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), is in his place.
I shall concentrate on the matters raised by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). It is always a pleasure to be able to take up his remarks. I have lost count of the occasions when I have been called after him or he after me. On this occasion we are in broad agreement. It is my strong impression, however, that the fears that he expressed, when put in the context of the rigorous provisions that my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the

House have suggested, could be unfounded. As for any inhibition on the information that the Comptroller and Auditor General might feel in obtaining information from Government Departments, if the Government were less forthcoming in providing information to him as a result of any changes that are made, I agree that that would be extremely serious. We must recognise, however, that the control of the information will still be with the Public Accounts Committee, which will decide whether to hand over information to another Committee. In the same way, another Committee would have control if information were passed in the other direction.
It is recommended in the report of the Procedure Committee that the chairmen of the PAC and of the Liaison Committee should enter into discussions about the precise mechanism whereby a co-operative approach might be used, especially in terms of overlap. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne and I, with the Chairmen of whichever departmental Committees might be involved, have for some years been anxious to avoid the problem of overlap. It places a severe burden on a Department if that Department finds itself having to provide information and evidence to a departmental Committee when at the same time it is providing information to the PAC. That, of course, is not desirable.
On the other hand, we need to consider the timing problem. It is recommended that the timetable of the PAC should be interlinked with that of departmental Committees. One of the problems is that the work of the PAC is often planned far in advance, whereas that of departmental Committees—in examining policy—may be carried out on the spur of the moment. For example, my Committee, the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service, is looking into something that a few weeks ago it had no idea that it would be investigating. If the PAC is already working on a particular subject, that is a problem. I am sure that the difficulty can be avoided in the future, as it has been in the past. I welcome the recommendation set out in the report.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that it is not the PAC which makes the decision at the outset. In effect, the National Audit Office will say, "We think that there is a subject here which should be investigated as a result of something that we have discovered within a Department." It then takes, typically, two or three months to ascertain whether there is enough in the subject for a report. Having decided that there is—if there is not, it will be dropped—the process can take six to 12 months. That is the problem. By the time the Select Committee starts to think about a subject, either it is not to be proceeded with or preparation has been made for some considerable time. When the position is, "We are interested in this but you are already doing it and we would like to take over", there is the problem that I have already mentioned of value for money.

Mr. Higgins: The right hon. Gentleman describes precisely the situation that we experience from time to time. In the past we have succeeded, one way or another, in reaching a satisfactory outcome. I hope that that will still be possible as a result of future consultations. However, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, that problem is not easy to overcome.
Part of the problem arises because both the PAC and the departmental Committees are involved in financial


aspects. The Committees must consider the policy, administration, and expenditure of the Departments that they monitor. The Government are right not to accept the Procedure Committee's recommendation to use estimate days for broader discussion of the reports of individual Committees. Estimate days are a successful innovation, but they need to focus on expenditure. As the Government have turned down that proposition, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will carefully consider making available specific time for debates on the Committees' other reports. From time to time, my right hon. Friend is able to do that, apart from regular events such as our debates on the Budget or on defence. However, there is currently no fixed allocation of time to enable the broader aspects of reports to be debated.
The question of duplication that the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne mentioned can also be overcome. I understand his concern about policy, and I listened with interest when it was said that it is not the intention that departmental Committees will take oral evidence from the Comptroller and Auditor General. If a technical point needs clarifying, that could adequately be done by correspondence. In any event, I have sufficient faith—if that is the right word—in the Comptroller and Auditor General to believe that if he were challenged on a matter of policy, he would say, "That matter is not for me—you must pursue it elsewhere".
The overall impact of the innovation will be that departmental Committees will have better access to information than before. It may be that they will use the basic data in the course of investigating policy, but that is very different from seeking to raise policy matters with the Comptroller and Auditor General. The innovations are sensible and well balanced, and will lead to better scrutiny of Government than we would achieve without them. The dangers are not such that we ought to do other than to adopt the recommendations of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

9 pm

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I am only too happy to confess to being a keen advocate of Select Committees—I am currently a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation—and thank the Leader of the House for providing this opportunity to debate the subject.
I associate myself with the sensible observations made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme). I want to tell the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) how much I appreciated his sensitive and sympathetic remarks about the need for a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. I may say in return that it is essential that such a Committee be established to scrutinise the Executive decision making that takes place in Northern Ireland—not that I am volunteering for membership of such a Committee. However, I sincerely hope that that objective is realised in the near future.
I was intrigued by the recounting by the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) of a fascinating suggestion put to him for establishing a Lords Committee on Scottish affairs. Are we brought to this? We are presented with the prospect of a Lords Committee taking itself off to Scotland to scrutinise the Scottish Office and the Lord Advocate's office, which are both mentioned in the motions.
Where would those venerable inquisitors begin their work? Would they seek to examine the present parlous state of the Scottish fishing industry? I remind right hon. and hon. Members from south of the border—though my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) needs no such reminding—that the management of the fishing industry north of the border is a matter for the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department. So would those venerable gentlemen head off instead for Lanarkshire, to investigate the Scottish steel industry? What would that Committee be named? Would it be called the Scottish Lords Committee? I do not mean to belittle or ridicule the idea, because there are a number of formidable Scottish intellects in another place, as the hon. Member for Honiton well knows, and I have great respect for the House of Lords Select Committee on European Legislation. If a Scottish Lords Committee were to produce reports of the calibre of that Committee, I would accept that temporary arrangement.
Many people in Scotland would be more sympathetic to that kind of Select Committee than to a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs comprising Members of this House. Perhaps the Scottish people are a little jaundiced by the constant squabbling among Scottish Members. Some people living in Scotland would willingly accept such a temporary arrangement, and I have no doubt that those venerable Members would produce perceptive and, I am utterly convinced, consensual reports. The concept is intriguing, and I am sure that it will be given currency in the absence of a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs.
In motion No. 4, there is specific reference to the Scottish Office and the
administration and expenditure of the Lords Advocate's Departments, together with policy functions discharged by the Lord Advocate".
We continue to come up against what some would call the steadfast refusal, but which I call the disgraceful refusal, of Conservative Members to serve on such a Committee. That Select Committee could be very important.
We must remember that the Scottish Office and the Scottish Law Officers are responsible for a formidably wide range of policy decisions and functions. I was a member of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs in the last Parliament and I believe that we are straying grievously by not having a Scottish Select Committee. I believe that that Committee could investigate, inter alia, the failure of the Lord Advocate's office in respect of child care law.
Earlier the Child Support Bill received its Third Reading. That Bill embraces the whole of the United Kingdom. However, there is a growing discrepancy between English child care law and Scots child care law. I believe that, in terms of its principles, theories, policies, procedures and practices, Scots law has an astonishingly elegant architecture. However, where children are concerned, it is beginning to reveal shaky foundations.
I supported the English Criminal Justice Bill, which contains provisions for the protection of children in sexual and child abuse cases where they have to give evidence in courts of law. We do not have that kind of legislation in Scotland. A Scottish Select Committee could cross-examine the Lord Advocate to determine why such exceptionally fine legislation is passed for English children while Scottish law lags behind. Similarly, that Committee could examine the policy decision making of the Lord


Advocate's office in terms of the office's failure to produce an Act akin to the Children Act 1989, which again is peculiar to England and Wales.
The failure to establish a Scottish Select Committee has denied us the right to examine the management of the Scottish fisheries by the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department. Many people in Scotland will tell hon. Members that that important indigenous industry is crying out for the analysis to which it would be subjected by a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, staffed as it would or could be by specialist advisers.
I recall that, as long ago as 1979, a Scottish Select Committee went to Aberdeen—I think that it was its very first investigation in that Parliament; I was not here at that time, of course—to examine elements of the fishing industry in relation to the White Fish Authority levy. It was a very important occasion for Aberdeen, the coming to town of the Scottish Select Committee, chaired as it was then by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). Another member of it was a fellow called Mr. Iain Sproat, who I believe hopes to come back to this place.
In the absence of a Scottish Select Committee, even though Scottish Office Ministers may be cross-examined at the Dispatch Box and by the Scottish Grand Committee —there have been seven sittings of that Committee in the past three weeks—the House of Commons is a forum for hon. Members to cross-examine Ministers in a remarkably comprehensive way. I have sat in the Public Gallery when other Select Committees have been conducting their inquisitions. Hon. Members on both sides of the House seem to have superb forensic skills such as we expect of QCs, particularly those who work the criminal circuit in England and Scotland, when cross-examining Ministers, officials or leaders of industrial organisations. We in Scotland are denied access to that essential parliamentary function. That explains why I have so much sympathy with my hon. Friends from Northern Ireland.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is much better for hon. Members who live in the community and who know the nuances in the community, in probing officials and others, to get to the heart of the matter?

Dr. Godman: The hon. Gentleman makes a telling point. One can imagine the members of a Select Committee on Northern Ireland cross-examining the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry or industrial leaders in Northern Ireland in a Committee Room upstairs. Because of their comprehensive knowledge of that beleagured Province, they could readily weed out the dross or the public relations gloss on presentations of evidence. Given the appalling circumstances that Northern Ireland hon. Members and their constituentss face, it reflects very badly on the Government and the House of Commons that they are denied such an important Select Committee.
In the scandalous absence of a Scottish Select Committee, I would readily agree to the temporary arrangement in the other place. More important, I would readily agree to the inclusion of English hon. Members, who may not have local knowledge, sitting on a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. I would even accept a

token Nationalist on such a Committee, but that is really another matter—[Laughter.] This is a serious point—we should have a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. Despite the fact that I am sitting within two yards of the Chairman of the Select Committee on European Legislation, my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), I would readily quit that Committee to take up membership of a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. We need such a Committee in Scotland. Our constituents—the people of Scotland—have the right to be given the services of a Select Committee, made up of their own Back-Benchers.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: I apologise for not being in the Chamber when the debate started, but I had not been aware that the motions would be taken together.
I rise to speak in favour of the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) because for many years I have held the view that Northern Ireland should have a Select Committee. I am therefore glad to have the opportunity to debate that subject today. I would hold that view whether or not such things as the talks that have been taking place in Belfast were to have reached a successful conclusion. To suggest, as my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) did, that somehow the talks in Belfast might have made the emphasis on Parliament less important to the Province is perhaps to miss the point. The fact is that Northern Ireland does not enjoy the same parliamentary representation as other regions of the United Kingdom, nor does it have, within its own local government structure, the same democratic institutions that we take for granted. Ever since direct rule was imposed from London, I for one have been trying to see whether it is possible to give Northern Ireland the representation that is taken for granted by our other regions.
We must therefore consider the whole way in which Northern Ireland is governed through direct rule. We must recognise the fact that its legislation is not handled in the same way as the many Bills affecting other parts of the United Kingdom. The best that Northern Ireland can hope for is an Order in Council, with one and a half hours of debate but without any ability for hon. Members representing Northern Ireland to amend that Order in Council. None of us should feel content with that, or believe that we can truly say that we have one of the best parliamentary democracies in the world while we know that that situation exists. What is more, I find it ridiculous that a Northern Ireland Member of Parliament can move an amendment to United Kingdom legislation, but cannot do the same for legislation which affects his own Province —the place where he lives and where those whom he represents have their homes. I trawl that example to show some of the imperfections and inequalities from which the people of Northern Ireland suffer and of which their parliamentary representatives are also the victims.
I sometimes wonder how I would know how to do my job properly if I were a Member of Parliament representing a Northern Ireland constituency. I do not know how I would avoid feeling frustrated or ineffectual. I would think to myself, "I go to Westminster where, every three weeks, we have Question Time with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, so I may have a chance to ask


a question then, although when I look at the Order Paper and see Members of Parliament from other parts of the United Kingdom filling it up with their questions, I cannot be so sure of that."
I have already discussed the position of the Northern Ireland Member in relation to legislation affecting the Province. Apart from that, what can he do? He can send letters to Ministers and hope to make his voice heard perhaps outside this place, but he cannot really feel that he is able to probe and scrutinise the Executive as each of us can otherwise do. Surely no one would disagree that one of the primary tasks of any Back-Bench Member of Parliament is to exercise the ability to scrutinise the Executive, to probe what the Government are doing, to seek answers to questions and, generally, to let air into those issues about which people may be asking questions, but where answers are not forthcoming.
The case for some form of committee of scrutiny on Northern Ireland seems to be an absolute case which hardly needs arguing. Indeed, it must have been in the mind of the present Lord St. John of Fawsley when he moved the motion in the House of Commons on 25 June 1979 which so clearly stated in its first paragraph:
Select Committees shall be appointed to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the principal government departments set out in paragraph (2) of this Order and associated public bodies, and similar matters within the responsibilities of the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Northern Ireland.
That was what he asked the House to approve and what the House approved. Yet having approved it, we seem to have chosen to forget it and find every possible argument for not doing anything about implementing the wishes of the House.
Tonight my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has an opportunity to give us some assurance or promise that he will consider the matter with the greatest care and in the light of some of the arguments that I have attempted to deploy. Of course, he may say to me, "Do not forget that Northern Ireland has debates on prevention of terrorism measures and appropriations—we do not have the same thing for English Members." But such debates are a poor substitute for the ability that Northern Irish Members should have to scrutinise the Northern Ireland Office and how it works, as well as various Government institutions within the Province which affect their lives and those of their constituents. I believe that a Select Committee would help to redress the imbalance.
I remind my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that not many years ago we were told that 12 Members of Parliament were all that Northern Ireland would ever have in Westminster and that if it had more all sorts of ructions might follow. We were told that the Irish might block legislation, and so on. Fortunately, as a result of the Speaker's Conference, a decision was made to increase that representation to what it should be, and none of us would argue that having 16 Northern Irish Members of Parliament has done any harm to the House. Indeed, it has given greater balance to the parliamentary representation of the Province than it ever had before. If that can be a success, why not a Select Committee?
I notice that the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley suggests in his amendment that the Select Committee should have 16 members, which would take in all the Northern Ireland Members who are sent to this place, bar the one who will never come. I am not sure that I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman on the 16, nor am I

absolutely sure that it would be in the best interests of Northern Ireland if the Northern Ireland Select Committee were composed only of Northern Ireland Members. I am not sure that a leavening of some of the Members of Parliament who come from other parts of the United Kingdom but take an interest in the affairs of Northern Ireland might not help to make the Committee effective.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the hon. Member giving way and the emphasis that he is making. It is not intended that the 16 should include all the Northern Ireland Members. The figure of 16 is intended to give a balance of the parties in Northern Ireland and the parties in the House. We accept the hon. Gentleman's point. The 16 does not refer to 16 Northern Ireland Members. It is intended to create a balance from Northern Ireland, mixed with a balance of the representation in the House.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: I am grateful for that assurance. It is most helpful and constructive.
It was probably in your hearing last week, Mr. Speaker, when one of my hon. Friends described the legislative and government structure in Northern Ireland as a constitutional slump. I am sorry that those words were spoken, but unfortunately they have a ring of truth about them. Northern Ireland currently enjoys colonial status -let none of us pretend otherwise. Its local government powers are unbelievably limited and it has no county councils or regional councils. Even the talks which might have led to a devolved administration, and which I hope will resume before long, are at present completely stymied.
Northern Ireland is therefore left with direct rule. I hope that I have shown that, because it is left with direct rule, it deserves the right of scrutiny and questioning of the Executive who seek to govern its affairs.

Sir John Wheeler: I wish at the outset to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) for the way in which he chairs the Select Committee on Procedure, for the attention that he has given to the issue under discussion and for his general wisdom and guidance.
I also personally appreciate the stewardship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), who has the awesome duty of presiding over the Liaison Committee of Chairmen. There is no more rigorous duty than that when Chairmen are concerned to defend the interests and, inevitably, the expenditure of the members of their Committees. Chairmen are especially grateful to my right hon. Friend for his guidance of our affairs.
On the amendment to Standing Order No. 130, as Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, I take this opportunity to welcome the proposed extension of the Committee's terms of reference to include the policy, administration and expenditure of the Lord Chancellor's Department, and the administration and expenditure of the Attorney-General's Office, the Crown prosecution service, the Treasury Solicitor's Department and the Serious Fraud Office.
Over 11,000 people are employed by the Lord Chancellor's Department alone, and its planned outturn for 1991–92 is £1·14 billion. It is right that the spending of that money and the administration of that Department should be subject to the scrutiny of a Select Committee.
The idea of extending the remit of the Select Committee on Home Affairs has been current for some time. I recommended it in my memorandum to the Select Committee on Procedure and I am delighted that it was one of its recommendations to the House. The Committee has already done some work in that area. For example, last Session we undertook a major inquiry into the Crown prosecution service in which we examined its achievements and the potential for future improvements in performance. The Lord Chancellor's Department has also participated in our inquiries into remands in custody, criminal records, the immigration and nationality department and Home Office expenditure.
The broadening of the Committee's remit to include fields so closely related to the work of the Home Office will permit a thorough examination of the criminal justice system. I look forward to that prospect and am confident that we will be able to make some contribution to the fair and efficient administration of the law.
It may be helpful if I remind the House, since the establishment of the departmental Select Committees, of the number of inquiries to which the Lord Chancellor's Department has given evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs. The five occasions were remands and custody in Session 1983–84; Home Office expenditure, 1988–89; criminal records, 1989–90; Crown prosecution service, 1989–90; and administrative delays in the immigration and nationality department, 1989–90.
The former Lord Chancellor, Lord Hailsham, gave evidence before the Committee on one occasion, and the present Lord Chancellor has expressed his wholehearted support for the proposals and work of the Select Committee and his desire to co-operate with it.
The amendment of the Standing Order is an important development in the work of the Select Committees. It is an appropriate amendment which I am sure the House will welcome.

Mr. David Trimble: I entirely agree that some of the functions of the Lord Chancellor's Office should come under scrutiny. However, those functions extend not merely to England and Wales but to Northern Ireland. His functions in respect of Northern Ireland, which are equivalent to those that come under the scrutiny of the Home Affairs Committee, are being left out. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is anomalous that the functions of the Lord Chancellor's Department with respect to England, Wales and Scotland should come under scrutiny, while those with respect to Northern Ireland do not?

Sir John Wheeler: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point and what he says is correct. However, the House is, inevitably, still evolving the role and scope of the Select Committees and has been doing so for many years. Tonight's debate and proposals are a manifest example of that extension of the Select Committees' duties, which we welcome. The Home Affairs Committee also has responsibilities that intrude into the Province of Northern Ireland. In a recent Committee inquiry, we visited Northern Ireland to contribute to the better administration of the Province and the interests of the United

Kingdom as a whole. Therefore, I accept the hon. Gentleman's point and we may soon see the Select Committees' role extending to meet his objectives.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I apologise profusely to the House for failing to attend for the first three quarters of an hour, but I was otherwise busily engaged.
I, too, pay tribute to the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), who has chaired the Procedure Committee so ably and always made a point of consulting widely in the Committee before putting any matters to it. I have been a member of that Committee for seven years, although I have been unable to attend it very often because it overlaps with the Public Accounts Committee.
At the back of the Procedure Committee's report for 1989–90 one sees that I moved a string of 10 amendments on the Committee's recommendations on the relationships between the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee and between the National Audit Office and other Select Committees. The amendments show that I wished fiercely to defend the interests of the Public Accounts Committee. I took that position having made several visits to the United States of America, where I was able closely to scrutinise the affairs of the General Accounting Office. I was left with the feeling that, because of a lack of a single strictly accountable committee within Congress, the GAO's efforts were almost disorganised and its role was often to serve only as a researcher to those congressmen and senators who could put pressure on it to carry out value-for-money projects and other work in areas in which they had a particular interest or which affected their congressional districts. The American experience has always worried me and I do not want it to arise in the United Kingdom.
Despite the fact that I vigorously moved those amendments, I understand the great concern that exists in other Select Committees about their limited access to information within our system. One of the amendments that I moved relates to that issue. It said:
Amendment proposed to leave out paragraph 267, and insert the words: 'We believe that Select Committees are entitled to greater co-operation with government departments in terms of access to information. The thrust of evidence given to PAC'"—
it was actually to the Procedure Committee—
'"by a number of witnesses suggests that the NAO is perceived as a means for securing a greater amount of information of higher quality and value to Committees. It is our view that, recognising this requirement, Parliament should consider the introduction of Freedom of Information legislation. It is our view that, in conditions of greater freedom in the provision of information held by government, arguments as to access through the NAO would be unlikely to arise in the way they have during the course of this enquiry.'.
I moved that amendment because I believe that there is a problem in terms of access to information held in Government Departments. If I were a member of the Select Committee on Defence, I would understand what was being sought, but instead of using the National Audit Office as a vehicle to secure access to the information, alternative arrangements should be made to ensure that access.
The Departments involved should become more flexible in terms of what information they are prepared to provide direct to Select Committees or we shall have to legislate in the House by way of freedom of information legislation,


giving organisations and individuals a right of access similar to that which exists in the United States. I have heard about a number of cases where information about the United Kingdom, which was being denied by Government Departments and Ministers in this country, has been made available in the library of Congress. On one occasion, I rang up a congressional colleague of mine in America to secure information about the United Kingdom defence policy and was given that information, even though I had been unable to get it in the United Kingdom, using all the procedures available to me as a Member of Parliament. Those procedures include written answers, oral answers and briefings from the House of Commons Library, which is often able to penetrate subjects when Members cannot.
I wish to stress that we should not use the National Audit Office, but ensure that we have legislation on the statute book to deal with the event of Departments being unwilling to be more flexible. That is the way forward. If there were greater provision of information to Members of Parliament and the wider public, arguments such as we have heard would not have arisen. The Select Committee on Defence and, if I remember rightly, the Select Committee on Transport expressed some fears. Such concerns would not arise in the future if we had the relevant legislation to deal with the problem.
Although it is not in order for us to propose legislation during a debate such as this evening's, I hope that even this Government—even at this late stage—will make promising noises about freedom of information. The next Labour Government are clearly committed to that principle.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I apologise to the House for not being present when the motions were moved. Like other hon. Members, I had not realised that all three were to be taken together. That in itself illustrates a point that I wish to make about Northern Ireland.
In the context of the Select Committee system, if there is one part of the United Kingdom that needs parliamentary control, parliamentary discussion, parliamentary debate and investigation into what is going on, it is Northern Ireland. However, our Select Committee system, with its defects—I do not think that it has many virtues and its weaknesses have, perhaps, not been sufficiently emphasised in the debate—is designed to increase the control over the Executive by Parliament, particularly by this place.
The fact that we existed with a sort of ad hoc Select Committee system before 1979 was unsatisfactory for all of us. We constantly wanted to appoint Select Committees to do this, that and the other until the key was found by Lord St. John of Fawsley, who proposed that there should be a rationalisation of the system, with a Select Committee to oversee the work of every Government Department. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was mentioned as being responsible for one such Department. Clearly it was originally envisaged that Northern Ireland would not be exempt from the Select Committee system, but what has happened?
In Northern Ireland there are probably more Ministers —a record number of representatives of the Crown and of the Front Bench—per head of the population than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland has a large civil service corresponding to the size of the

population, but it has no proper system of local government. One should have thought that there was a vast vacuum of power. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) suggested, that vacuum has been filled by a colonial system. Because of that vacuum the parliamentary representatives of Northern Ireland and all of us who are interested in Northern Ireland have a right to be represented in a specialist committee that takes a day-to-day interest in the Province.
Where is the parliamentary input into the constitutional arrangements for the supervision of Northern Ireland through the system of Select Committees? Where is the control over the Executive in Northern Ireland? The hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland make a valiant effort, but they have to work on the basis of one and a half hours only being supplied at the end of business on orders that cannot be amended. They must also rely on other ad hoc Committees on specific subjects.
That state of affairs would be totally inadequate for a normal part of the United Kingdom with normal circumstances and conditions, but we are talking about a war-torn part of the United Kingdom. Therefore, it is the one part that, above all, needs as much democracy and open discussion of its affairs as possible.
We badly need a Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. It could be provided with Members from all parts of the House. It would not suffer the fate of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs because there are certainly plenty of Conservative Members who would like to participate in a Select Committee on Northern Ireland. They would like to develop a specialist knowledge and expertise of the Province so as to deal not only with a fascinating, charming and important part of the United Kingdom, but with an extremely difficult constitutional and political problem. I have been interested in the subject for nearly 20 years and I have grown to learn that it is a fascinating study.
Why do we not have a Select Committee for Northern Ireland? I was disappointed at the report of the Select Committee on Procedure. Although I pay tribute to the Chairman of that Committee, I was disappointed in its report because it seems that it has gone for the excuse of expediency. The report stated:
The possible establishment of a Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, whilst attractive in principle, could cause difficulties for the initiative launched by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, which is designed to achieve inter-party agreement on the possible future arrangements for government of the Province. As a responsible Committee of the House, we are bound to take seriously this advice about a matter of such extreme sensitivity.
That is an argument of expediency. It is suggested that because this is such a difficult, sensitive subject, which causes a great deal of political controversy, a Select Committee should not be appointed to inquire into it. Does the suggestion that it is because of a current initiative —how many initiatives have there been in Northern Ireland since its constitution was abrogated 20 or so years ago, with scarcely a year passing without some sort of political initiative?—mean that the Select Committee will never come back to it and say that it backs the idea of a Northern Ireland Select Committee? Such a Committee is needed, whatever stage may have been reached with regard to any political initiative.
The political initiative to which the Committee refers has come to an end. No doubt there will be another. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P.


Emery) and his Committee will not say, when the new initiative starts, "We still cannot recommend a Select Committee because," as they say in paragraph 277 of the report, it is a matter of such extreme sensitivity.

Sir Peter Emery: rose——

Mr. Stanbrook: I am glad that I have provoked my hon. Friend into wanting to intervene.

Sir Peter Emery: I am sorry that my hon. Friend was not here when I made my speech. Had he been here, he would have realised that most of what he has said is irrelevant and unnecessary.

Mr. Stanbrook: I am speaking to the Select Committee's report which will no doubt be read by all those hon. Members who happen not to have shared the experience of the few of us who are in the House. I have already explained why I was unable to be here earlier in the proceedings.
It is a very big mistake not to have a Northern Ireland Select Committee. If it is not a question of the inter-party talks—many people never really believed that the inter-party talks would be successful, under present conditions—is it because of fear of disturbing the political equilibrium as regards the Irish Republic and other outside interests? Is it thought that those interests are so great that we do not want, for diplomatic reasons, to interfere with or upset them? That, too, would be a very great mistake. It would be on a par with the biggest mistake of all, made by the Conservative Government who came to power in 1979, in concluding the Anglo-Irish Agreement that conceded sovereignty.
We talk so much nowadays about not giving away sovereignty to the European Community, but we positively conceded sovereignty over Northern Ireland to the Irish Republic by the Anglo-Irish Agreement. That, possibly, is at the root of the hesitation over dealing with the Province as an integral part of the United Kingdom —as it should be and as it is constitutionally. It should be dealt with by the House within the Select Committee system.

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) for their kind remarks. I have always been a supporter of the Select Committee system. I was its advocate before 1979 and I have supported it ever since. I am glad, therefore, to be able to comment on it this evening.
Most hon. Members referred to issues relating to the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office. I fully understand the points made by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). I understand his concerns and hope that I have taken them all into account. I say that as a former member, some years ago now, of the Public Accounts Committee. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), to whose work as Chairman of the Liaison Committee I also pay tribute, that the fears which have been expressed about this modest step are unfounded.
My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton made the point clearly that nothing here will weaken or undermine

the position of the Public Accounts Committee, and I am glad to repeat it. I stressed that also in my opening speech. There is nothing here to turn the Comptroller and Auditor General into a political animal. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne has strong feelings about that, and I agree entirely with him that the task of the Public Accounts Committee should remain unfettered.
My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton made a particular point about the cost implications for the National Audit Office. He and I have discussed this matter. It is a matter for the Public Accounts Committee, whose Chairman is in the Chamber, and I believe that the Public Accounts Committee will watch that aspect carefully because in my view it is not what the Procedure Committee intended when it made its recommendation. I see no reason why that should occur because we are talking about work that the National Audit Office has already done, so I hope that any attempt to use this recommendation to increase staff and expenditure will be resisted.
I have heard nothing in the debate to suggest that there is any disagreement between us. I hope that the House will agree with the concluding comments of the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne that with good sense we can deal with this in a reasonable way. I agree with that, and I hope that we can move forward on that basis.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and my hon. Friends the Members for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) and for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) talked about the amendment proposing a Select Committee for Northern Ireland Affairs. I well understand the concerns that the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley has expressed and I know that he is keen that such a Select Committee should be established. As has been mentioned, the Procedure Committee agreed in principle that there should be such a Committee, but that now would not be a sensible moment to recommend its establishment.

Mr. Molyneaux: The Committee's recommendation was talking not about how but about the time of the report. I accept the Committee's thinking that that was not an appropriate moment to establish a Select Committee, but we are now talking about now and not then.

Mr. MacGregor: I was coming to that. The Committee said in its report that then was not a sensible time to establish a Select Committee.
In making its recommendation, the Procedure Committee took account of the discussions that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland had been conducting over the future arrangements for the government of Northern Ireland and the views expressed by the hon. Members for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) in letters to the Committee which were published. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley referred to the recent talks. He knows that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that he will be exploring the possibility of securing a basis for fresh talks at some time after the holiday period if the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland say that that is what they want.
The Government's view remains the same as that of the Procedure Committee—that now is not the time to set up such a Select Committee. However, I assure the right hon.
Member for Lagan Valley that the matter can be reviewed again at appropriate times, and that I shall be prepared to do that.
I note what my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton said about the extra two members of the Select Committee on Education and Science being scientists. I am not sure that we can guarantee that that will occur, but my hon. Friend's point has been noted.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) referred to potential duplication and overlap between the work done for the Public Accounts Committee and for individual Select Committees. I am grateful for his understanding of the pressures on Departments. Although it was recognised in the debate that there are sometimes difficulties, I am sure that the sensitive way in which this has been handled in the past will continue to ensure that, so far as possible. extra burdens on Departments and duplication and overlap can be avoided. The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) will know that, since we first debated the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs when I became Leader of the House, the Scottish Grand Committee has met on a number of occasions. I believe that it met this morning to discuss housing in Scotland. That development has occurred in the past few months and has enabled further consideration of Scottish matters, but I see no prospect of a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs being set up in this Parliament.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) described the motion as a further step in evolving the role and scope of the Select Committees, and I believe that that is the right way to describe it.

Sir Peter Emery: May I remind my right hon. Friend about the reappointment of Select Committees at the start of a new Parliament? That aspect must not be swept under the carpet.

Mr. MacGregor: I have noted what my hon. Friend said, as did the Opposition Chief Whip, but that is not a matter on which we can put forward a Standing Order this evening.

'3. Education, Science and Arts
Department of Education and Science
11
3'


and inserting the words—


'3. Education, Science and Arts
Department of Education and Science; Office of Arts and Libraries
13
3';


by leaving out the words—


'9. Home Affairs
Home Office
11
3'


and inserting the words—


'9. Home Affairs
Home Office; policy, administration and expenditure of the Lord Chancellor's Departments (including the work of staff provided for the administrative work of courts and tribunals, but excluding consideration of individual cases and appointments); and administration and expenditure of the Attorney General's Office, the Treasury Solicitor's Department, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office (but excluding individual cases and appointments and advice given within government by Law Officers)';
11
3


by leaving out the words—

In the spirit of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North, I commend the motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) be amended by inserting at the end of line 38 the words—
`(e) proceedings on a Motion such as is referred to in paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 104 (Nomination of select committees) for the nomination or discharge of members of select committees appointed under Standing Order No. 130 (Select committees related to government departments) which has been opposed at or after the interruption of business on a preceding day;
Provided that any questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings on such a Motion shall be put at Eleven o'clock or one hour after the commencement of those proceedings, whichever is the later.'

COMMUNICATION OF EVIDENCE, &c.

Ordered,
That—
Standing Order No. 122 (Committee of Public Accounts) be amended by adding at the end the words—
'(3) The Committee shall have power to communicate to any committee appointed under Standing Order No. 130 (Select committees related to government departments) such evidence as it may have received from the National Audit Office (having been agreed between that Office and the government department or departments concerned) but which has not been reported to the House'; and
Standing Order No. 130 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended by inserting in line 33, after the word 'committee', the words 'and to the Committee of Public Accounts.'.—[Mr. MacGregor.]

SELECT COMMITTEES RELATING TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS

Ordered,
That Standing Order No. 130 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended
in line 3, by inserting after the word 'departments', the word 'as';
in line 6, by inserting at the end the words '(excluding the expenditure, administration and policy of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Northern Ireland).';
in the Table by leaving out the words—

'10. Scottish Affairs
Scottish Office
13
5'


and inserting the words—


'10. Scottish Affairs
Scottish Office; and administration and expenditure of the Lord Advocate's Departments, together with policy functions discharged by the Lord Advocate through the Scottish Courts Administration, but excluding consideration of individual cases and appointments, advice given within government by Scottish Law Officers, and the drafting of bills';
13
5


by leaving out the words—


'14. Treasury and Civil Service
Treasury, Management and Personnel Office, Board of Inland Revenue, Board of Customs and Excise'
11
3


and inserting the words—


'14. Treasury and Civil Service
Treasury, Office of the Minister for the Civil Service (but excluding the drafting of bills by the Parliamentary Counsel Office), Board of Inland Revenue, Board of Customs and Excise';
11
3

in line 12, by inserting at the beginning the words 'The Education, Science and Arts Committee (in respect of matters relating to science and technology principally within the responsibilities of the Department of Education and Science or an associated public body)';

and by leaving out lines 15 to 20.—[Mr. MacGregor.]

House of Commons Services

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons John MacGregor): I beg to move,
That, with effect from the beginning of the next Session of Parliament, the following amendments to Standing Orders be made:
(1) Standing Order No. 104 (Nomination of select committees) be amended in line 12, after the word `departments)', by inserting the words 'or under Standing Order No. 125 (Domestic Committees),'.
(2) Standing Order No. 125 (Select Committee on House of Commons (Services)) be repealed and the following Standing Orders be made—

Domestic Committees

125—(1) There shall be four Select Committees to consider the services provided for the House in regard to the following matters:
1. Accommodation and Works
2. Administration
3. Catering
4. Information

(2) Each committee appointed under this order shall consist of seven Members, and the quorum shall be three.

(3) Each committee appointed under this order shall have the assistance of the Officers of the House appropriate to the matters under consideration.

(4) Each committee appointed under this order shall have power—
(a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from time to time;
(b) to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference;
(c) to communicate to any other such committee, or to the Finance and Services Committee appointed under Standing Order No. 125A, or to the Broadcasting Committee appointed under Standing Order No. 125B, or to the House of Commons Commission, its evidence and any other documents relating to matters of common interest; and
(d) to meet concurrently with any other such committee, or with the Finance and Services Committee, or with the Broadcasting Committee, for the purpose of deliberating or taking evidence.

(5) Each committee appointed under this order shall have leave to meet concurrently with any committee of the Lords on House of Lords Offices or any sub-committee of


that committee, for the purpose of deliberating or taking evidence, and to communicate to any such committee or sub-committee its evidence or any other documents relating to matters of common interest.

(6) Each committee appointed under this order shall have power to make recommendations to the House of Commons Commission or to Mr. Speaker; but any such recommendation whose implementation would incur additional expenditure from the Votes for House of Commons (Administration) or (Works) shall also be considered by the Finance and Services Committee.

(7) Each Committee appointed under this Order shall have power to make rules and give directions to Officers of the House in respect only of such administrative matters as may from time to time be determined by Mr. Speaker or by the House of Commons Commission.

Finance and Services Committee

125A—(1) There shall be a Select Committee, to be called the Finance and Services Committee, to consider expenditure on and the administration of services for the House and—
(a) with the assistance of the Board of Management, to prepare the Estimates for the Votes for House of Commons (Administration) and (Works) for submission to the House of Commons Commission; 
(b) to monitor the financial performance of the Departments of the House; and
(c) to report to the House of Commons Commission or Mr. Speaker on the financial and administrative implications of recommendations made to them by any of the Committees appointed under Standing Orders No. 125 (Domestic Committees) or No. 125B (Select Committee on Broadcasting).

(2) The Committee shall consist of not more than eight Members, and the quorum shall be three.

(3) The Committee shall be assisted by the Accounting Officer and by other Officers of the House appropriate to the matters under consideration.

(4) The Committee shall have power—
(a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from time to time; 
(b) to communicate to any committee appointed under Standing Orders No. 125 (Domestic Committees) and No. 125B (Select Committee on Broadcasting), or to the House of Commons Commission, its evidence or any other documents relating to matters of common interest; and 
(c) to meet concurrently with any committee appointed under Standing Orders No. 125 (Domestic Committees) or No. 125B (Select Committee on Broadcasting), for the purpose of deliberating or taking evidence.

(5) The Committee shall have leave to meet concurrently with any committee of the Lords on House of Lords Offices or any sub-committee of that committee, for the purpose of deliberating or taking evidence, and to communicate to any such committee or sub-committee its evidence or any other documents relating to matters of common interest.

(6) Unless the House otherwise orders, all Members nominated to the committee shall continue to be members of the committee for the remainder of the Parliament.

The House will know that the Ibbs report, the recommendations of which are closely followed in the motion, emphasised the need for clearer lines of responsibility throughout the House's services. The House of Commons Commission and, in some instances, you, Mr. Speaker, alone are at the apex of the system, but the Commission needs advice on policies from bodies composed of hon. Members. That will be provided by the four new domestic Committees which will make recommendations directly to the Commission and to the Speaker as appropriate.

Administration will be vested in the heads of Departments who must be allowed to take responsibility for the day-to-day management of services. Recommendations from the domestic Committees which go to the Commission will usually have financial implications. Under the present system it is no one's job to make a close assessment of the costs of implementation and to set orders of priority. I believe that that is a great weakness in the present system. Under the Ibbs proposals, the Commission will remain the supreme financial authority, but advice on such matters will be available from the new Finance and Services Committee, and I believe that that is also a major improvement.

The division of responsibility is reasonably clear from the proposed titles of the Committees and is as close as possible to a logical division of the domestic affairs of the House. Few of the issues are entirely free standing, however, and for that reason the new Standing Orders empower the Committees to meet jointly.

I am pleased to tell the House that extremely good progress has been made in implementing the proposals of the Ibbs report. The House will be aware that the two Directors of Finance Administration and of Works have been appointed and will shortly assume their responsibilities. I hope that the whole House will agree that there is now every reason to press on with establishing these important new Committees. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Stanley Orme: On behalf of the Opposition, I welcome the motion. As Chairman of the Administration and Accommodation Sub-Committee I, like many hon. Members, am aware that the system needs to be tightened. The route to decision making, and not least to finance, should be sharpened. I hope that the Ibbs proposals will take us some way to a more efficient management of our own affairs within the Palace of Westminster. They go a considerable way in that direction— some of my colleagues would have preferred an even more direct route. They represent a positive and useful step, and I support the motion on behalf of the Opposition.

Question put and agreed to

Mr. Speaker: Now that the Services Committee has ended its life, perhaps it would be an appropriate moment for me to express my appreciation for the advice it has given me since I became Speaker of the House.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON BROADCASTING

Resolved,
That, with effect from the beginning of the next Session of Parliament, the following Standing Order be made

Select Committee on Broadcasting

125B—(1) There shall be a Select Committee with power to give directions and to perform other duties, relating to the broadcasting of proceedings of the House and matters ancillary thereto.

(2) The Committee shall consist of eleven Members, and the quorum shall be three.

(3) The Committee shall have powers—
(a) to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House; to adjourn from place to place; and to report from time to time;


(b) to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee's order of reference; 
(c) to communicate to any Committee appointed under Standing Order No. 125 (Domestic Committees), or to the Finance and Services Committee appointed under Standing Order No. 125A, or to the House of Commons Commission, its evidence and any other documents relating to matters of common interest; and
(d) to meet concurrently with any Committee appointed under Standing Order No. 125 (Domestic Committees), or with the Finance and Services Committee, for the purposes of deliberating or taking evidence.

(4) The Committee shall have leave to meet concurrently with any Committee of the Lords on Broadcasting, for the purpose of deliberating or taking evidence, and to communicate to any such Committee its evidence or any other documents relating to matters of common interest.

(5) The Committee shall have power to make recommendations to the House of Commons Commission or to Mr. Speaker; but, any such recommendation whose implementation would incur additional expenditure from the Votes for House of Commons (Administration) or (Works) shall also be considered by the Finance and Services Committee.

(6) The Committee shall have power to make rules and give directions to Officers of the House in respect only of such administrative matters as may from time to time be determined by Mr. Speaker or by the House of Commons Commission.

(7) Unless the House otherwise orders, all Members nominated to the Committee shall continue to he members of the Committee for the remainder of the Parliament.

That the Order of 25th October 1990, relating to Broadcasting and having the effect of a temporary Standing Order, shall lapse upon the coming into force of this Standing Order.—[Mr. MacGregor.]

Statutory Instruments, &c

Mr. Speaker: It may be for the convenience of the House if I put motions Nos. 7 to 13 together.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c,

ATOMIC ENERGY AND RADIOACTIVE SUBSTANCES

That the draft United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (Limit on Borrowing) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 17th June, be approved.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE

That the draft European Parliamentary Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 1991, which were laid before this House on 25th June, be approved.

That the draft Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Variation of Specified Documents and Amendment) Regulations 1991, which were laid before the House on 25th June, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND

That the draft Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 25th June, be approved.

That the Draft Genetically Modified Organisms (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 4th July, be approved.

DENTISTS

That the draft Dental Auxiliaries (Amendment) Regulations 1991, which were laid before this House on 27th June, be approved.

That the draft Dentists Act 1984 (Dental Auxiliaries) Amendment Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 21st June, be approved. [Mr.Kirkhope.]

Question agreed to.

Parliamentary Pensions

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move,
That this House endorses the proposals for changes in Members' pension contributions and scheme benefits to achieve reductions in the Member contributions from 9 per cent. to 6 per cent. and improvements in the ill health provisions of the Parliamentary Pension Scheme, thereby implementing the recommendations in the Top Salaries Review Body Report on the Parliamentary Pensions Scheme presented on Friday 28th June (Cm. 1576).
As the House knows, the Government Actuary's latest report on the parliamentary contributory pension fund, the Top Salaries Review Body report and the Government's response were all published on 28 June. The Government accepted all but one of the TSRB's 10 recommendations. On behalf of the whole House, let me pay a warm tribute to all the members of the TSRB, especially those on the sub-committee, who did a great deal of detailed and worth while work in producing the report so speedily. We are in their debt.
Of the TSRB recommendations——

It being Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, Parliamentary Pensions may be proceeded with, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock or the end of a period of one and a half hours after it has been entered upon, whichever is the later.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Mr. MacGregor: Of the TSRB recommendations that we have accepted, three require amendment to the scheme. As the House knows, we now have power to do that by regulation under the Parliamentary and Other Pensions Act 1987, without having to use primary legislation.
As required under the Parliamentary Pensions Acts, I have consulted the trustees of the scheme on the proposed changes. I should add that we have undertaken to mirror, where possible, the changes that we are making in the basic scheme in the supplementary ministerial scheme. I shall explain the implications of that under each heading.
Two of the changes—the reduction in the Member contribution and the ill-health enhancement—are provided for in the draft regulations covered by the motion. Copies of the draft regulations themselves have been available in the Vote Office. I am pleased to be able to say that the regulations have been agreed by the trustees. The third change requiring amendment to the scheme is the TSRB's recommendation 9, to guarantee that a full pension should continue to be paid for five years after retirement if a Member of Parliament dies in that period. That is more complex and, with the agreement of the trustees, we are holding it over until later. I shall say more about this shortly, but I assure the House that I firmly intend to deal with the matter at the appropriate time—that is, when we have worked out exactly how we shall implement it.
I remind the House that we have been determined that the move to amend the scheme by regulations under the 1987 Act—which are subject to the negative resolution procedure—should not mean that the House loses the opportunity to discuss proposals to change the scheme and, if appropriate, agree amendments to those proposals. That is why, in line with the commitment given by the Paymaster General in 1987, the regulations are available to

the House in draft, with an opportunity for hon. Members to comment before those regulations are laid in their final form. We followed exactly that procedure in January this year, when we debated regulations to increase the widow's pension.
As for the recommendations which we accepted but which did not require regulations, let me draw attention particularly to recommendation 3, which requires the trustees to be asked to review the scheme from time to time when the Government Actuary's triennial report is presented. I believe that that recommendation is sensible, and I was happy to accept it.
Let me now deal with the regulations themselves. The centrepiece of the TSRB recommendations is a cut in the Member contribution from 9 per cent. to 6 per cent. I know that there has been a strong feeling in the House —which I share—that Members are paying too much, and I am pleased to accept the TSRB's view that the contribution should be cut. I believe that much of the pressure for the so-called balance of contributions last year reflected concern about that point. The cut in Member contribution puts that argument in a new light, especially since the TSRB has rejected—rightly, in my view—the case for moving to a fixed-ratio system. I hope that the House will share my view that we can now put that argument behind us, and concentrate on the reduction to 6 per cent.
I shall not dwell on the TSRB's arguments for the cut, which are spelt out very well in its report. I emphasise, however, that the TSRB took the view that, as only 4 per cent. of occupational pension schemes have an employee contribution in excess of 7 per cent., the Member contribution in the PCPF was seriously out of line with practice elsewhere in the public and private sectors. That is what led it to recommend the reduction in the Members' rate. I emphasise that there is no special treatment for Members. Indeed the position is quite the opposite for we have been paying a higher contribution than the vast majority of other occupational pensioners. Given the surplus, there is no need to continue to do so. The TSRB report makes it clear that we should come into line with other occupational pensioners and that we have every justification for so doing

Mr. Stanley Orme: The point should be made loud and clear that we are asking for nothing more than that which exists already in the public and private sectors. We do not want any special privileges, but we want to be treated equally with others

Mr. MacGregor: I very much agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Quite a considerable surplus has been built up, as I have said, and no doubt that is partly as a result of high contributions. I believe that the case for making the proposed change is clear.
Regulations 2 and 3 implement the cut in contribution, which applies to both the basic and supplementary schemes. The cut takes effect from next April to fit in with the new valuation period.
I should say a word about how the cut in contribution fits in with the new Government Actuary's Department valuation, on which the TSRB recommendations are based, and the overall costs of the scheme. As the GAD report brings out, because the fund remains in surplus the actual Exchequer contribution would have been 2·8 per cent. until the year 2000, when it would have risen to the long-run standard rate of 14 per cent. I shall not weary the


House with the complexities of the difference between the two because it is an arcane pension fund matter which I think most of those who are in the Chamber understand. The point is that the contribution would have risen to the long-run rate, the rate that would have been reflected over a longer period had the surplus not existed.
Had the Exchequer contribution been 2·8 per cent. until the year 2000, I think that I can predict the response from colleagues on both sides of the House, especially as we are so much out of line with other occupational schemes. That is why I was so keen for the TSRB to take the GAD report into account in its own report. The cut in Member contribution which it recommended, and which the Government accepted, significantly alters the overall position because it correspondingly increases the implied Exchequer contribution by 3 per cent. The improvements in the death and ill-health benefits, which we are also implementing, will increase the long-run total cost of the scheme by a further 1 per cent., to 24 per cent. of salary. As the benefit improvements are made without changing the Member contribution, the Exchequer contribution will also rise by a further I per cent. As a result, the long-term cost payable by the Exchequer—leaving aside surpluses or deficits—will now be 18 per cent., against a Member contribution of 6 per cent., but the actual Exchequer contribution, taking the present surplus into account, will be 6·8 per cent.
In carrying out its review, the TSRB examined the benefit structure of the scheme. We have been persuaded by its case that it is right on welfare grounds to make some minor but nonetheless important changes to ill-health enhancement. The existing arrangements are complex and the proposed changes simplify matters considerably.
The essential TSRB recommendation is that, for the calculation of ill-health retirement pensions and spouses' pensions in the event of the death of a Member in service, years of potential pensionable employment to age 65 should be credited to replace the existing less favourable enhancement rules. This would correct the inadequacy of the existing low level of pensions for young Members faced with retirement due to ill health or, if they die, for their surviving spouses. In addition to improving the existing provision greatly, because of the simplified basis of calculation Members and their spouses would know in advance what their entitlement would be in the event of ill health, retirement or death. I am sure that I do not have to underline the importance of that, when during this Parliament we have seen a number of tragic cases of colleagues who died young. Accordingly, regulation 5 implements the granting of full potential pensionable employment to age 65, to replace the existing complex enhancement rules for the calculation of ill-health retirement pensions and of spouses' pensions when Members of Parliament die in service. Ill-health enhancement is not available under the supplementary scheme, and regulation 5, therefore, applies only to the basic scheme.
The House will know that the TSRB considered the position of former Members of Parliament who die within a few years of starting to draw their parliamentary pensions. Some 76 per cent. of schemes other than our own have some form of five-year guarantee that the scheme Member's pension will be available to the spouse in the

event of death. We accepted that recommendation, which will ensure that, at relatively low cost, beneficiaries receive value for contributions paid.
Unfortunately, that recommendation is difficult to implement even-handedly. I discussed the position with the trustees and we identified a number of cases where, depending on the drafting of the regulations, closely parallel circumstances might result in very different treatment. We reached the conclusion that we should not rush into implementing that particular recommendation, and the trustees and I agreed that we should ask officials to establish arrangements which will not lead to such anomalies but which will meet the recommendation.
I am happy to give a definite commitment to introduce at a later date regulations to implement that recommendation in a way that is acceptable to the trustees and to the House. Those regulations will also be put before the House for discussion in draft, in accordance with the procedure to be followed under the 1987 Act, which we are adopting tonight.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: The provision for doubling the widow's death benefit was backdated because the Government were unable to introduce the regulations at the right time. Will the ill-health regulations to which my right hon. Friend just referred be made retrospective to today's date or to the date when the current regulations go through?

Mr. MacGregor: If my hon. Friend is referring to the death guarantee regulation, I shall seek to ensure that which he suggests.
I should explain why we have not decided to agree to the TSRB recommendation backdating the faster rate of accrual. I know that it is argued that the TSRB had offered its recommendations as a package, but against that I have to take account of the fact that our regulations must achieve a fair balance between the Member of Parliament and the taxpayer. More importantly, I believe that within the scheme we now have the balance between benefits and contributions right.
I must start by saying something about the use of surpluses. I believe that it is wrong to start from the point that the surplus should be run down in the fastest possible time, especially since it is important not to exaggerate its size. Although it may look large, we must remember that the GAD valuation makes it clear that the surplus is well within Inland Revenue limits.
At the same time, we are using some of the surplus. The reduction in the contribution to 6 per cent. not only gives a better balance between the Member of Parliament and the Exchequer; it in itself will act to reduce the surplus, but in a prudent way. I do not believe that it would be right to go further. Taking account of the benefit improvements last March and the minor new improvements now, additional to the 6 per cent. reduction, the total additional cost to the scheme will be 4 per cent. Members of the scheme are not being asked to pay any of that now. If we appropriate the surplus today, we shall bring forward the day when Members will have to bear the cost of the improvements. I do not believe that we should do that.
None the less, I considered very carefully the TSRB proposal that the accrual rate for service before July 1983 should be converted from one sixtieth to one fiftieth for serving Members of Parliament, but I do not believe that it made a strong case for doing so. I am struck also by the


fact that the TSRB did not point to other schemes, public or private, which have adopted that approach on accrual. If we adopted that retrospective change—which is what it would be—we should be under strong pressure to make similar changes to other public service schemes and the repercussions could be very expensive. I do not believe that it is possible to justify going back almost two full Parliaments to undo a decision made eight years ago, and never questioned in the interim. Moreover, it is a particularly unnecessary change as provision already exists for Members to purchase added years at the improved rate of accrual. Those who have chosen not to upgrade their pension have obviously felt that they had good reason for not doing so. Of course, many of our colleagues did upgrade their pensions. I believe that the choice should continue to be left to the individual Member. The trustees are keenly aware of that and, apart from anything else, given that many Members have taken the opportunity to convert their service at 40 per cent. of the true cost, augmentation such as the TSRB suggests might not be practicable.
That is our one point of difference. In general, I hope that the House will agree that the Government's response to the TSRB recommendations has been positive. I believe that they are totally justified and I repeat our warm thanks to the members of the TSRB for their report, for the report's great thoroughness and for the speed with which they brought it forward. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Stanley Orme: I associate myself with the comments of the Leader of the House about the TSRB report and the thoroughness with which it examined these matters. We referred them back to the TSRB as a result of pressure from hon. Members who felt that an injustice had been committed with regard to the percentage that we pay and because we wanted the TSRB to consider once again the position of widows and ill health. We also wanted to raise with the TSRB whether we should pay sixtieths, fortieths or fiftieths.
We welcome the reduction from 9 per cent. to 6 per cent. of salary. As I said in my intervention in the speech of the Leader of the House, that is fully justified and does not place Members of Parliament in a special category. We are now being treated the same as the public and private sectors. That point struck home when we gave evidence to the TSRB. Obviously the TSRB did its homework, and when it examined pension schemes generally it discovered that we were being treated unfavourably and that we had been asked to make contributions which were totally unjustified. That change is very welcome and I am sure that hon. Members will benefit from it.
I welcome recommendations Nos. 8 and 9 from the TSRB about the enhancement rules for ill health and retirement pensions and for spouses' pensions when Members die in service. I also welcome the comments of the Leader of the House about that, and about the fact that regulations will have to be drafted and presented to the House. He gave a clear undertaking to do that, as he did in respect of the recommendation for former Members who die during the first five years of retirement that an Member's pension should continue to be paid to a surviving spouse for the remainder of the five years after

retirement. That matches normal practice. As the Leader of the House said, 76 per cent. of pension schemes have such a provision.
As the Leader of the House said, there have been unfortunate circumstances in the past two years when younger Members have died leaving families and people with responsibilities. We have improved the death grant. Changes have been made which are small but positive alterations that we all welcome.
I now refer to the recommendation on the existing accrual rates of fiftieths and whether they should be applied to all currently sitting Members in respect of their future entitlement, with appropriate change for those who have voluntarily been making up the shortfall as outlined in detail in paragraph 40 of the TSRB report. I listened carefully to what the Leader of the House said, but that is a unanimous recommendation from the TSRB. In another paragraph, it states that it saw no reason to reduce the rate from fiftieths to fortieths, for example, but it recognised that, by implication if nothing else, our rate of sixtieths was an injustice, particularly bearing in mind the average length of time for which many hon. Members are in the House, as opposed to spending a lifetime in commerce, business or industry. That recommendation is positive and sound. Perhaps the Leader of the House, having heard what has been said, will at least consider the matter again. Obviously, he cannot make a decision this evening, but that recommendation warrants consideration.
The money exists. Perhaps another way of using it could be found. If the right hon. Gentleman does not feel that it is right to pay back on the fiftieths and accrual rate, perhaps it could be done either by enhancing the pension or doing something extra for widows. The TSRB states that that would cost about £3 million, but that £3 million is available without any extra stress being imposed upon the fund

Mr. Ray Powell: With all his experience and knowledge of the pension scheme, will the right hon. Gentleman disclose the current balance of the parliamentary pension fund? What figure are we talking about?

Mr. Orme: I do not have the exact figure in front of me, but we are talking of a considerable amount—perhaps £70 million or £80 million. I am not sure of the total, but it varies, as the hon. Gentleman will recognise—and it varied on stock exchange black Monday, which had an unfortunate effect. I cannot give the figure now, but I will certainly ensure that the hon. Gentleman receives it. Perhaps the Leader of the House has the figure

Mr. John Greenway: The right hon. Gentleman will find that the current surplus is £7·3 million, which is substantial

Mr. Orme: I understand that £7·3 million is the figure.
I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will press those points on the Leader of the House. That issue aside, however, the proposals are satisfactory and in line with natural justice, they are not out of line with anything within the public or private sectors, and I welcome them.

Mr. Alfred Morris: As the House knows, I intervene in the debate as chairman of the managing trustees of the parliamentary contributory


pension fund. This is the third debate that we have had on pensions in the last 18 months. Earlier debates were about improvements we were seeking and the mounting criticism there has been of the gross imbalance between the Member's and Exchequer contributions to the fund. My fellow trustees and I have taken the lead in securing many improvements to the pension scheme over recent years, most recently the increase in the widow's pension from one half to five eighths of the Member's entitlement. It was pressure from the trustees that led to the TSRB's latest review of the scheme, the outcome of which was reported to the House in the right hon. Gentleman's reply to my parliamentary question of 28 June. The trustees want me to place on record tonight their appreciation of both the thoroughness of the TSRB's review and the speed with which it reported. While we wanted the review board's recommendations to go further, we welcome the improvements its report will secure.
It may be helpful for me briefly to compare the recomendations with the thinking of the trustees on the issues with which the TSRB's report deals. In recommendation 1, the TSRB says that the balance of cost method should be retained for determining the relationship between the Member's and Exchequer contributions to the fund. In their submission to the review board, the trustees had repeated their previous requests for a fixed relationship between the Member's and Exchequer contributions and suggested a ratio of 3:5. The TSRB's examination of this issue is covered by paragraphs 11 to 23 of its report. Naturally, the trustees regret that their renewed request for a fixed relationship was unacceptable to the review board.
Recommendations 2 and 3 say that the Government Actuary should continue to be responsible for reviewing the financial position of the fund and for recommending the balance of cost contribution required from the Exchequer, and also that the TSRB should review the pension scheme on a regular basis at the time of the Government Actuary Department's triennial review. The review board has noted and accepted the points made by the trustees about the Actuary's dual role. While we do not dispute the objectivity of his advice, we are concerned that he has two functions and about the dangers of trying to serve two masters. It is now proposed that the TSRB should play a more active role, one that would assuage our concern, and the trustees welcome these recommendations.
Recommendation 4 is that the Member's contribution rate should be reduced from 9 per cent. to 6 per cent. of salary from next April. The trustees have pressed strongly and repeatedly over a long period for a reduction in the Member's contribution rate and, as I have said, we also sought a fixed relationship between the Member's and Exchequer contributions. The trustees are, of course, very pleased that the contribution paid by Members will now be set at a much more realistic level.
Recommendation 5 is that the accrual rate——

Mr. Ray Powell: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way because this is an important point. Why have the trustees recommended that the reduction in the percentage that we pay into the pension scheme should be implemented in April, not immediately?

Mr. Morris: It is not our recommendation that the reduction should take effect from next April; that is the recommendation from the TSRB. For our part as trustees, as the hon. Members for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) and for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg), who work with me as trustees, will confirm, we have wanted a reduction in the Member's contribution for a very long time. We have argued that the contribution of 9 per cent. has had no relationship to the financial needs of the fund. The result has been that the Exchequer contribution has gone down to a point where, in contrast to other schemes, we have been paying twice as much as the Treasury. We wanted a reduction long before now. The House should recall, and the Leader of the House will know, that the TSRB itself has said more than once that the 9 per cent. contribution is far too high.
I turn to recommendation 5, namely, that the accrual rate should remain at a fiftieth of final salary for each year of service. The trustees requested the TSRB, in reviewing the accrual rate, to take into account the relatively short time span of the average parliamentary career. In response, the review board has noted that improved "portability" of pensions now allows Members to bring pension rights into the parliamentary scheme and argues that this development, together with the existing rate of accrual, should enable Members of Parliament to acquire good overall pensions. Nevertheless, the feeling persists, on both sides of the House, that a faster accrual rate would be well justified for an occupation in which the average length of service is so short

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Can my hon. Friend tell the House from his experience as chairman what proportion of Members, especially those joining the fund, are able to bring the whole of their contributions—not only theirs but those of their employer—into the scheme? I should have thought that the phrase "improved portability" might be slightly optimistic

Mr. Morris: Details of our practice over the years can be made available to my hon. Friend. When I entered the scheme, I brought from the electricity supply industry my total entitlement as of that time. It bought a number of years in the parliamentary scheme. My hon. Friend raises an important point. We will certainly provide him with any more detail he may wish to secure.
Recommendation 6 proposes that the existing accrual rate of fiftieths should be applied to all service for currently sitting MPs, with appropriate augmentation for those who have been making up the shortfall voluntarily. The Leader of the House stated in his parliamentary reply to me on 28 June, at column 565, that the Government do not propose to accept this recommendation, to which I shall return shortly.
Recommendation 7 is one which the trustees find extremely disappointing. The TSRB proposes that pensions for widows and other surviving spouses should not be improved further from five eighths to two thirds of the Member's pension. The trustees have been pressing for a two thirds widow's pension and are not persuaded that this is unjustified. We note the TSRB's point that 80 per cent. of other schemes allow for only one half spouse's pension, but feel that our scheme, to which Members have been paying a contribution of 9 per cent. since 1983—very


much higher than the employee's contribution in the vast majority of other schemes—could have afforded a two thirds widow's pension.
I turn now to recommendation 8. This proposes the grant in full of all the years of potential pensionable employment to the age of 65 to replace the existing enhancement rules for ill-health pensions and for spouses' pensions when MPs die in service. The trustees asked for a minimum level of widow's pension in these cases and are grateful for the considerable improvements the TSRB has proposed.
Recommendation 9 is about former MPs who die during the first five years of retirement. The TSRB proposes that a Member's pension should continue to be paid to the surviving spouse for the remainder of the five years after retirement, followed by dependant's entitlement. The trustees have noted, as the right hon. Gentleman has also seen, that this could produce some anomalies in apparently similar cases, and we agree that further discussion is necessary about this proposal. We are grateful to the Lord President for his firm commitment to the trustees and to the House tonight to bring forward regulations to implement this recommendation at the earliest possible date. As the right hon. Gentleman said, recommendation 10 proposes that the changes should also apply to the supplementary scheme for Ministers and office-holders.
The trustees welcomed the speed with which the right hon. Gentleman responded for the Government to the TSRB's recommendations, but were not wholly satisfied with their response. We were concerned about the loss to Members of the Government's rejection of the TSRB's proposal, in recommendation 6, that the existing accrual rate of fiftieths should apply to all service for currently sitting MPs. While we understood the Government's reluctance to accept the retrospective aspect of the recommendation, the trustees saw the TSRB's report as an affordable package of improvements and were concerned that the rejection of this recommendation left some £3 million of the surplus in the fund unused.
We made strong representations to the Leader of the House for use of the £3 million for other improvements to the scheme, one of which would have allowed Members to enhance widows' pensions from five eighths to two thirds. We are very conscious of the strain parliamentary life places on Members' families and of the widely held view in the House that the claims of surviving widows of Members must be a very high priority. It was for this reason that the trustees felt justified in pressing the Leader of the House to use the £3 million we are losing from the TSRB's package on improving the lot of widows.
We were turned down, but still feel strongly that it is quite wrong for Members and/or their dependants to lose £3 million from a package, seen as affordable by the TSRB, simply because of the Government's inability to accept one of the recommendations and their unwillingness to agree to suggested alternative ways of spending the money.
The central and indisputable fact here is that Members will lose £3 million to which independent arbitrators think they are entitled. We must, therefore, very soon find some way of addressing this wrong. If the Government are saying that they can think of no way of spending the £3 million now missing from the review board's package—which, I repeat, the TSRB saw as affordable—Ministers are saying, by implication, that the scheme is incapable of

improvement. That clearly is an indefensible posture, and I urge the right hon. Gentleman now to agree that Members must be given the full value of the TSRB's package if the scheme is to become more comparable with better schemes elsewhere.
The suggestions made by the trustees for further improvements to the scheme have all been rejected by the Leader of the House, but we want him to agree tonight that, in consultation with us, he will look urgently for costed improvements that we can all approve and, by preference, steps to ease the problems of widows and other dependants.
I and my fellow trustees will continue to strive for improvements to the pension scheme. All of my colleagues work hard and with genuine commitment to the interests of their fellow Members and dependants alike. We have achieved much over recent years, for which the right hon. Gentleman can take some credit, but there is still much more to do if we are to make the benefits of our scheme anything like comparable with those in other Parliaments, not to mention many other pension schemes in Britain today.
I conclude by paying tribute to Jim Dobson, who retired last month as our secretary after long and highly distinguished service in the Fees Office, to his successor Tony Lewis and to all who work with him and us in the service of Members and their dependants. Their work goes far beyond the calls of duty, and they deserve the very warm appreciation of the House as a whole.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) chairs the managing trustees very ably, and we have made an enormous amount of progress in the past few years. I also pay tribute to the Leader of the House for what he has done. I have been a trustee since 1983 and we have made substantially more advances in the past 12 months than we did in the previous period. I believe in making progress stage by stage, and the review body and the Government's response have, as the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe said, made substantial advances.
The right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) rightly said that the reduction in Members' contributions was a matter of equity. As there are a substantial number of non-contributory pension schemes, taking into account the reduction to 6 per cent. we still pay more than many other people. It is a chicken-and-egg situation. Because the trustees, through careful management, built up a substantial surplus in the fund, the Government Actuary decided that the Government's contribution could be reduced. Had we been less skilful and built up a smaller surplus, the Treasury might not have been placed in that position. So there was no advantage to the trustees or the House to manage the affairs of the parliamentary pension fund as effectively as we did.
I thought that it might be interesting to compare our pension scheme with others, so I checked out some journalists' pension schemes. Most of them are contributory and contributions range from 6 per cent. to 7 per cent. The BBC has a contributory scheme to which the contribution is 6 per cent. to 7 per cent. None of the schemes has a 9 per cent. contribution, so our proposed reduction to 6 per cent. cannot be deemed out of line.
Queries were raised when, a few months ago following a review, the widows' benefit was increased to two years' salary. I notice that the average scheme in the media industry provides rights for widows or widowers, after a death in service, at a level of three times the deceased person's salary. The best schemes provide for a level of four times the salary. We should occasionally put those issues in the balance. It will be interesting to see whether they are mentioned.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Can my hon. Friend also tell us what salaries are paid to the media and what level of pension is therefore enjoyed by journalists when they retire?

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: That would be interesting, but I did not have time to make that comparison. However, had I done so I do not think that it would have been unfavourable toward Members of Parliament—[Interruption.] I shall not enter into the many tax-free expenses that have existed in so-called Fleet street practices for many years.
On balance, the proposal is very reasonable. Naturally, we should like more, but that will always be the case when one is looking after the interests of other people. However, one must concede, that everything cannot be done at once. We have a major instalment.
I took comfort from recommendation 3, which calls on the review body to look at the scheme on a regular basis at the time of the Government Actuary's triennial valuations. That means that the points put forward by the chairman of the trustees can be reconsidered in the context of the next review. By then, who knows, the Committee, under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), may have made some revolutionary proposals. For example, it may have proposed that the House sits for two days a week or for 42 weeks a year. If one links the salary with that, it may make a difference to pensions. I do not think that we are losing anything by not opting for the total package now. It would have been welcomed, but all of us are realistic.
We must thank my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House not merely for the action that he has taken, but for the speed with which he has done so. I also welcome what he said tonight about retrospection in the regulation when he is able to get the parliamentary draftsmen to work out the complicated regulation needed for the five-year period.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The speech of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) underlines the fact that the proposals bring us close to achieving the sort of contributory scheme that many hon. Members would have experienced had they not had the good fortune to be here.
I add my thanks to the trustees, the Fees Office staff who have contributed to our deliberations, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), who has gathered information from colleagues. I was glad to assist him in giving evidence to the Top Salaries Review

Body. I was not an advocate of the fixed ratio, but thought that the ratio should be equitable. It is clear from the recommendations that we have broadly achieved that.
However, a few more improvements should be made. The theme of my contribution relates to the basis for further change which has not yet been discussed.
First, I shall correct what might otherwise be considered a misleading intervention which I made during the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). Paragraph 36 of the report refers to "improved portability". Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe, I was lucky enough to come to the House with full transfer rights. I was aware then that many hon. Members were not so fortunate. I assumed that the same position more or less existed today. I checked with the Fees Office officials and was happy to find out that legislation—which no doubt passed through the House, so I should have known about it—has made virtually equivalent transfer possible since 1988. Therefore, the Top Salaries Review Body is correct to say that there is improved portability.

Sir Peter Hordern: It is true that portability has been allowed for some years. Am I not right in thinking that, when the hon. Gentleman and some of his colleagues were allowed to transport their pension rights to the parliamentary scheme, they did so on the old basis, which was not particularly generous? Since 1988 and the introduction of full transferability, the position is altogether different. The point that the TSRB is making—that more and more people are able to transfer their pensions from their occupational schemes—is not good in respect of those hon. Members who have been in the House for some time. That point applies in a useful way only to those hon. Members who were elected after 1988

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, as one of the trustees, for explaining that. It adds weight to the case for at least some degree of retrospection, to which reference has been made.
The criterion of the operation should be whether there is any perceived disadvantage to anyone seeking to become a Member of Parliament. It is possible that a prospective Member could perceive that he or she would suffer a disadvantage in terms of pension rights on his election. He or she may be willing to take the risk, and many of us probably would have done. It is more important to determine whether taking aboard any risk would constitute a risk for a Member's family and dependants. That is where improvements are necessary.
It is important to consider paragraphs 41 and 42, which contain recommendation 7. They state that the present pension of the surviving spouse should stay at five eighths of the Member's salary rather than be increased to two thirds of it. It also notes that 80 per cent. of occupational pensions offer the remaining spouse only half the original pension. However, as the hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) said, it is not a sum of money that is being referred to, but two thirds, five eighths or a half of the Member's pension. That pension, particularly for older Members, might be rather less than it otherwise would have been for reasons already given. If so, the pension for the widows, and, possibly, the dependants, will be less.
The report states that the scheme will be subject to review. When we come to consider the total operation of the scheme, the trustees, the Government of the day and the TSRB—it might reconsider the scheme on the triennial valuation—must ask what disadvantage exists not only for

the prospective Member but for the families and dependants who do so much to sustain our work. If there is a deficiency in our scheme in comparison with most other schemes—I espy that there probably still is—it should be made good.

Sir Peter Hordern: We have come a long way in the past two years when we consider that the contribution rate of Members was 9 per cent. and that of the Government was 4·5 per cent. As a trustee, I pay my tribute to the chairman of the trustees who has led us so well. I also pay tribute to the Fees Office on the advice that we have received from it.
Sometimes, when one considers the power available to the Treasury to advise my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in comparison with the power that the Fees Office gives to the trustees, it is clear that the battle is unequal—like David and Goliath. However, we have received excellent advice from the Fees Office and long may we continue to do so.
The reduction in Members' contributions from 9 per cent. to 6 per cent. is the major triumph of the review which the TRSB has set out in such detail and with such careful consideration. That is especially significant when one considers that, had there been no change, the Government's contribution would have gone down from 4–5 per cent. to 2–8 per cent. That would have been extraordinary and the trustees would have found it difficult to commend it. The change in contribution has been a major triumph.
I understand the view of the TSRB on the accrual rate. I think that one fiftieth is a reasonable proportion, but I do not accept, for the reasons that I gave to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), the argument about portability. The argument about hon. Members being able to transport their previous occupational pensions into the parliamentary scheme is not a good one. Most people come here when they have already served between 15 and 20 years, perhaps longer, in an outside occupation. It is only recently that the transfer rights have been valuable. The transfers to which the hon. Member for Newham, South referred were useful, but they were not as good as the existing rights. I do not believe that the TSRB was right in that context.
The argument about the value of the fund today and what should be done with it remains. As the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) said, we have had a balanced review and a balanced award. It was intended that the fund should be used to pay out special benefits to those who had previously bought in extra years so that they received some compensation for doing so.
I understand and accept the view of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that that would have made it retrospective and therefore undesirable. It is a good point. Nevertheless, as the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) said, it means that the fund is £3 million in surplus more than it otherwise would have been.
I thought I heard my right hon. Friend, when reading from his Treasury brief, use words such as, "It would be wrong to run down the pension scheme too quickly, and we must not spend all the money at once"—as though it had not been the recommendation of the Top Salaries Review Body that the £3 million should be spent on compensating those who had already bought previous years. I know that my right hon. Friend is a man of great native Scottish caution and that, as a general rule, we should not spend all the money at once, but that money was earmarked for this purpose.
I thought I heard my right hon. Friend also say, although my ears must have deceived me, that having reached that stage, which would be most undesirable, members of the fund might have to pay more. I have news for my right hon. Friend. It is not the members of the fund who might have to pay more; the Treasury, on the balance of contribution argument, would have to pay more. It was a Treasury brief. My right hon. Friend—most untypically for him—did not pick up that point as quickly as he should have done.
The £3 million still exists. The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe, the chairman of the trustees, was correct to point that out. The question is, what should be done? May I remind the House of the reason why the added years were there in the first place. Members were given the right to buy added years at a subsidised rate. As one of those who benefited, I can tell him that there is no particular joy to be gained from parting with money, only to find that everybody gets the same, anyway, and that all that money has now been wasted. But that is bye the bye. The question is, what can reasonably be done with the extra £3 million?
On the widows' benefit, the trustees felt very strongly that, good though the increase in widows' benefit to five eighths was, there was a strong case for increasing it to two thirds. That is partly because of the argument that I used when I intervened during the speech of the hon. Member for Newham, South—that portability is not a good argument and that it applies to only a few hon. Members who have been able to transfer their old occupational pensions in a realistic and beneficial way to the parliamentary scheme.
It should be possible—I put it no higher than that—for hon. Members to contribute, in the way that they did to added years, and make an additional provision that would amount to a two thirds pension for widows or widowers. That was the reason why we were allowed to buy added years in the first place. It would be a contributory scheme. If those who contributed to the added years scheme were offered compensation by the TSRB, they should be allowed to buy improved benefits for widows or widowers. There would be no question of a straight gift being made. Contributions would still be made by those hon. Members. It would be a reasonable benefit to offer.
If that does not happen, unless the TSRB makes further recommendations about benefits during the next three years, the Treasury's contribution will be reduced by exactly that sum or more, because the £3 million will have been intelligently invested and by then will be worth a great deal more. That money should be used in that way.
I have been very critical—I hope not unkindly so—of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. However, I commend his extraordinary ability in getting this through the Treasury. How that was done I do not know. It has been tried on previous occasions, with no luck. I can only imagine that he employed his great gifts of intelligence, charm and knowledge to get the better of the Treasury. Again I commend him on it.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the three hon. Members who are now standing that the debate ends at 11.30 pm and that time should be left for the Leader of the House to reply.

Mr. Tom Cox: The debate is obviously of great interest to all of us because we are Members. What is discussed and approved affects us as much as it affects our families. I should like to bring another aspect to the attention of the Leader of the House which we have a duty to consider, although it may present problems.
Like my hon. Friends the Members for Ashfield. (Mr. Haynes) and for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), I am a trustee of the parliamentary Labour party benevolent fund. There one sees at first hand the problems faced by former Members. We have a 96-year-old former Member who was a senior Minister but, sadly, left the House many years ago when there were no pension arrangements. We have an 85-year-old former Member who was in the House for seven years but has no pension from it. There are also the widows of former Members, many in their 90s. The small sums that the parliamentary Labour party is able to give them through contributions—which are very small—are of great help to them.
We have a duty to look after the interests of former Members. Those of us who have been Members for a while will have seen salaries and pensions improve considerably, but some former Members were here when salaries were low and pensions non-existent. They face enormous hardships. Ex-Members and their widows gave great service to the House over the years.
Colleagues have paid warm tribute to the Fees Office, and I join in that. Over the years, I have consulted the Fees Office about ways in which we can help ex-Members and it has always been generous in its advice and in the time that it has given.
I have given the background to this matter because of what could happen to any Member, no matter what his party or on what side of the Chamber he sits. As we have heard, recently several young Members have died, many of whom had young children—it would be inappropriate for me to mention those Members' names, but hon. Members know to whom I refer.
The hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) and others referred to the £3 million surplus. Because of the contacts that my hon. Friends the Members for Ogmore and for Ashfield and I have had with the widows of young Members who died recently leaving young children, we know of their worries about their future. Obviously, substantial improvements have occurred, but we all know from our own lives of the costs borne by women with young children. Given the sums available, I ask the Leader of the House to examine ways in which we can give some security—it does not have to be total security—to the wives of ex-Members.
In talking about money, nothing is clear cut—many situations cause problems. We know the reluctance of any Government to become involved in retrospective legislation, but those of us who are privileged to be Members of the House, and whose futures when we have ceased to be Members are reasonably well safeguarded, have a duty to remember our colleagues who served in the House when conditions were not so good. I accept that there will always be problems, but I beg the Leader of the House—I join in the tributes that have been paid to him—to consider the cases of the wives of some young ex-Members who have, sadly, left us in recent years. I also

ask him to give his attention to the cases to which I have referred. I shall be delighted to provide him with the necessary documentation if he wishes.
We have a duty to look after not only ourselves, but colleagues who were our friends. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the great strength of this place is that no matter what one's party, one builds lasting friendships here. I know Conservative colleagues who have faced the same problems as Labour ex-Members. It is our duty to look after their interests. Even though they have left us, their families and relatives are still here.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I shall also heed what you said about speaking briefly, Mr. Speaker. I echo every word of what the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) said and I look forward to hearing the contribution of the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes). My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) sensibly said that we cannot expect to have in one go everything that we believe to be right, and it would make sense to take what is being offered tonight.
It is worth echoing what was said in previous debates. For at least 12 years, the Treasury's contribution to the pension scheme was substantially higher than that made by hon. Members. Although that position has been reversed, we should acknowledge the fact that from 1972 to 1984 the taxpayer made a substantially greater contribution than we did. That does not detract from our responsibility to the dependants of those who were unable to serve in the House for a sufficiently long time, or sufficiently recently, to gain the extra advantages for which we are paying. I speak with a certain disinterest as I hope to survive my wife and to get the benefits of being a widower—it may be rare for a Tory Member of Parliament to say such a thing, but I wanted to share that thought.
What I said in a previous debate was right. Most Members of the House are not especially interested in a reduction in their contributions from 9 per cent. to 6 per cent. if the 3 per cent. differential could be used more effectively. That issue has been considered by the Top Salaries Review Body and by the Government, and I pay tribute to the Government, to their advisers and to the board.
Following what my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) said, hon. Members' attention should be drawn—preferably as soon as they are elected—to the opportunities for additional voluntary contributions, whether for themselves or for survivors' benefits for widows or children. Hon. Members should also be informed of other ways in which we can sacrifice a part of our present salary so that various contingencies can be met at a higher rate. That is one of the issues with which the civil service has dealt ever more satisfactorily since the end of the war, and it should be brought to the attention of hon. Members.
I agree that we have a responsibility to those people who were Members of the House some time ago, who were paid at lower rates and whose responsibilities were perhaps greater than ours. I do not think that the scheme should necessarily deal with those people—although I should like to see it do so—but perhaps we could adopt the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Tooting whereby those involved in the benevolent funds of the Labour and Tory


parties, and of the minority parties if they have them, could get together with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to consider how to use the surplus or find another way to ensure that we voluntarily give something to help those older and poorer than we are.

Mr. Frank Haynes: I think that the pensions section of the Fees Office does a first-class job on our behalf, and always has. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) mentioned Jim Dobson, the Accountant; no doubt his successor will do a first-class job, just as he did.
I also thank all the trustees for the work that they have done on behalf of hon. Members—and for themselves as well, for they, too, will enjoy the pensions. I wish to compliment the Leader of the House: we got nowhere before he became Leader. I have already complimented him privately, and now I want to do so publicly. He, too, has done a first-class job, although I think that he slipped up tonight. I ask him to think about what has been said by, for instance, my right hon. Friends the Members for Wythenshawe and for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), and the hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern), who made an important point. It is obvious that the help for widows is coming from the trustees themselves.
Let me tell the Leader of the House that hon. Members from all parties regularly put their heads together in the Tea Room and on the Terrace and discuss what can be done about the unfair treatment of widows. A first-class suggestion, involving £3 million, has been made tonight and the Leader of the House should seriously consider it. I was a little upset when the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) mentioned the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), who is to chair the Select Committee considering the House's working hours. He said that the Committee might recommend that the House sit for only two days a week. That would be awful: it would mean that we would see you only twice a week, Mr. Speaker, and I am not having that. There is no way that I would agree to that sort of thing. I want to see you five days a week, because I think that you do a first-class job as well. I remember things that have happened over the years, Mr. Speaker, and I think that you do a good job outside the House, never mind inside it. I think you know what I am referring to.
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate mentioned the schemes that operate outside. They are far better than ours; they are non-contributory, for a start. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned journalists. From time to time, journalists accuse hon. Members of not turning up in the Chamber. We need only look up at the Press Gallery to see how many journalists are present tonight. They are either tucked up in bed, or sat around the table having a damned good dinner and a bottle of wine. They attack us sometimes, but it is my turn now: I have an opportunity to have a go at them. I think that they are unfair at times.
Let me come back to the Leader of the House. I think that the Top Salaries Review Body did a first-class job on behalf of Members. It looked at the position fairly and squarely and then made certain recommendations. I am a

little surprised that the Leader of the House is rejecting one of those recommendations. I think that he is wrong to do so, and I think that he will understand why, given some of the speeches that have been made.
Let me ask the Leader of the House a question: can he tell me what contribution employers are making in all the private schemes outside that are better than ours—and there are many? There is no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman has done a good job on the Treasury: he kicked them around a bit and he has got what he wanted on behalf of Members—and himself; he, too, will benefit. But I think that he will find that employees outside are paying a lot more than employers, although in many instances it is the other way round. Members' contributions have been unfair for a long time, but it has been recommended that they should be reduced. That recommendation is fair, and so is the argument that has been advanced this evening by right hon. and hon. Members about widows and the £3 million that is available. I have made a contribution to that £3 million, and I should like to see it directed to widows. That is where I stand and that is where most of us stand. The Leader of the House should take that on board.

Mr. MacGregor: The most controversial remark in the debate was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), who had the temerity to say that he anticipated outliving the Minister for Health. Apart from that, we have had a good-humoured, sensible and level-headed debate. Mark you, Mr. Speaker, I think that the remark of my hon. Friend about the Minister for Health was good humoured.
I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and to the trustees for the work that they do. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for paying tribute to Jim Dobson and the others in the Fees Office, including Tony Lewis, who have worked on all matters that we have discussed. I support that tribute, but I think that the trustees deserve great credit for advocating changes, some of which are before us this evening.
I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) and for Horsham (Sir. P. Hordern) for their kind remarks, as I am to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes). I think that the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe was somewhat unkind when he said that Ministers were saying that the scheme was incapable of improvement. We are seeing many improvements being made to the scheme this evening and clearly the Government have accepted them. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman did not mean exactly what he appeared to say. I hope that he will recognise that the Government have been positive in their response

Mr. Alfred Morris: I was saying that the implication is that the scheme is incapable of further improvement. The TSRB put forward a package, £3 million of which will now be missing. There are improvements that we could suggest. I hope that there will be agreement between both sides of the House that we should at least consider positively spending that money to improve the lot of widows.

Mr. MacGregor: No one has ever suggested that the scheme is incapable of further improvement, but I turn directly to the point that the right hon. Gentleman has raised, which I think is the main one this evening.
I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham that his remarks about accruals were not quite accurate. We must accept that the £3 million surplus to which the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe referred is not necessarily there for all time. The right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) said that we have a surplus because we have had, thanks to the Government, an effective improvement in the nation's prosperity, which has been reflected in surpluses in pension funds. Those are the results of improvements in the stock market and elsewhere. There is no guarantee, however, that the improvements will continue for ever or, indeed, throughout the 1990s. We should not regard the £3 million as money that is logged up that can be spent now in the expectation that there will not be changes in future.
We should take a prudent view of the surpluses, not least because the long-term cost as assessed by the Government Actuary, leaving aside surpluses and deficits, will now be 18 per cent. for the Treasury as against 6 per cent. for Members. There may therefore be an argument at some stage, if we find that we move into deficit and at the same time we have greatly increased benefits, that Members should contribute more as well.
I have advanced two other arguments. One is that the proposal that is based on accruals involves an element of retrospection. The second is that there would be repercussive effects on other public sector schemes in terms of accruals. Those arguments apply as well as the one about surpluses. Those are all points that we took into account when the Government changed only one of the recommendations.

Sir Peter Hordern: I appreciate my right hon. Friend's point concerning retrospection, but the TSRB recommended that the £3 million should be spent now, in the way that it proposed. Obviously we are not going to accept that. That £3 million would not have been available at all if the TSRB had its way—and there can be no question but that it is now available. Can my right hon. Friend confirm the extent of the Government's contribution? As I understand it from paragraph 50, with the £3 million—that is to say, with the retrospective element—the Government's contribution would have been 8·8 per cent

Mr. MacGregor: The Government's contribution is now 6·8 per cent. However, we must be free to accept or reject TSRB recommendations—although it is clear that we have largely responded in favour of them. The TSRB recommended against increasing widows' pension from five eighths to two thirds, and we must take that into account when considering some of the other pressures for changes to widows' benefits that have been exerted in the House tonight.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate and to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) for pointing out that our acceptance of the TSRB's recommendation for a three-yearly review means that we will have a regular opportunity to review the scheme, in line with the Government Actuary's triennial review. I hope that the House considers as helpful that regular opportunity to consider whether further improvements should be made. That was an important recommendation to accept and represents a further advance on the Government's position, because that aspect was left open in 1987.
The right hon. Member for Salford, East asked me to take away and to consider the Government's response on accruals and on doing something extra for widows. I will do so, but the arguments in respect of accruals are powerful, and there are two difficulties in respect of improving widows' benefits. They would be retrospective, and the TSRB recommended against an increase on the ground that the benefits are now quite reasonable.
I take the point made by the hon. Member for Newham, South that a number of occupational schemes offer better benefits, particularly in relation to the amount of service that Members of Parliament can sometimes put in, and which is of benefit to their pension scheme—and that, in our scheme, the proportion that applies to the widow's pension may not result in a vast sum of money. We must bear that point in mind for the future, and no doubt it is one that will be argued again to the TSRB

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for accepting my point, which accords with others about widows' benefits made by my right hon. and hon. Friends. Would not it be useful to review the actual amounts of money received by widows, relative to other people's needs, and the increased percentage liability on the fund that an increase to two thirds would make?

Mr. MacGregor: Those points could be looked at again—certainly in the context of the three-year review.
I believe that right hon. and hon. Members agree that the proposals that we have made in the light of the TSRB's recommendations are a further advance—and that the reduction in the contribution from 9 per cent. to 6 per cent. is a considerable advance, and entirely justified. I will take away to consider the views that have been expressed—but without commitment, because there are strong arguments against them. I reiterate our thanks to the TSRB for the firmness and speed with which it acted. I commend the motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House endorses the proposals for changes in Members' pension contribution and scheme benefits to achieve reductions in the Member contributions from 9 per cent. to 6 per cent. and improvements in the ill health provisions of the Parliamentary Pension Scheme, thereby implementing the recommendations in the Top Salaries Review Body Report on the Parliamentary Pensions Scheme presented on Friday 28th June (Cm. 1576).

Brigade of Gurkhas

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): It is symptomatic of our treatment of defence matters in this place that the future of some of the finest soldiers ever to serve the British Crown should be debated late at night when all but a handful of hon. Members have gone home. However, the hour and the manner of the debate belie the real concern of right hon. and hon. Members of whom no fewer than 153 have signed early-day motion 921 about the future of the brigade of Gurkhas. It states:
That this House believes that the Gurkhas have a unique record of service in the British Army and loyalty to the British Crown, that their qualities of adaptability and devotion to duty will still be required in the defence of Britain's interests in an uncertain world in the future; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to confirm that the Gurkha Brigade will continue to have a worthwhile and viable future in the British Army as previously declared by the Right honourable Member for Ayr, the former Secretary of State for Defence on 22nd May 1989.
At least three more hon. Members signed that early-day motion today, but their names will not be printed to the motion until next Thursday after my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is expected to have made his statement to the House on the reorganisation of regimental structure in the Army.
The Government would be wrong to underestimate the strong feelings in the House that the Royal Brigade of Gurkhas should be retained within the British Army and that assurances about the brigade's future given as recently as May 1989 by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), the former Secretary of State for Defence, should be honoured.
During the Ministry of Defence's current review of the size and shape of the British Army no unit other than the Gurkhas has inspired an early-day motion in its name. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) has argued the case for the Parachute Regiment, and rightly so. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Boscawen) has argued the case for the Household Division and for the Army as a whole, and rightly so; and the former Army Minister, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart, in debate and on paper has warned of the serious potential for overstretch, particularly of infantry, if the proposed reductions in battalions go ahead. He has emphasised the key potential role of the Gurkhas especially for international peace-keeping outside the NATO area.
Since Sir John Nott and Sir James Scott-Hopkins left this place, I know of no Member who has served in a Gurkha battalion. I participated in a parachute course with the Gurkhas 30 years ago at Abingdon. The impression that they made on me then has never left me and it was renewed when I went with the Select Committee on Defence to visit them in Nepal in 1989.
The Gurkhas have no constituency Members—unlike the Royal Hampshire Regiment and the Green Howards. However, it is noteworthy that the simplistic argument that each Gurkha battalion retained means one additional British battalion disbanded has, from the evidence of the

amendment to that effect to early-day motion 921, few adherents. There are but four names in support of those three amendments and there are good reasons for that.
The Gurkhas uniquely derive their status in the British Army by international treaty. Gurkhas were first recruited to the service of the British East India Company by virtue of the treaty of Segauli, which ended the British-Nepalese war in 1816 and which also declared perpetual friendship between Britain and Nepal. Following the partition of the subcontinent on Indian and Pakistani independence on 15 August 1947, a tripartite agreement was signed between the Governments of India, Nepal and the United Kingdom whereby six Gurkha regiments were incorporated in the Indian army and four transferred to the British army. Paragraph 4(6) of the agreement stated:
The Government of Nepal have agreed that Her Majesty's Government in the UK may employ Gurkha officers and soldiers up to the number required to maintain eight battalions or their equivalent at peacetime strength, on mutually satisfactory terms and conditions of service. The two Governments will consult together on the question of recruiting Gurkha troops in excess of this strength.
The then Secretary of State for Defence, in his statement on the tripartite agreement to this House on 1 December 1947, concluded:
For our part … we have no doubt that, as between friends, its provisions will be loyally observed and can be smoothly carried into effect."—[Official Report,1 December 1947; Vol. 445, c. 36.]
In other words, unlike other regiments in the British Army which, if disbanded, can be reformed at the will of the British Government, if the Gurkhas are disbanded, the Government of Nepal might feel that a solemn agreement between friends had been abrogated and that Gurkha loyalty had been repaid with British indifference and then, possibly in some future emergency or war, British pleas for the recruitment of Gurkha troops to serve our Crown once more could fall on deaf ears in Kathmandu.
In world war one, 200,000 Gurkhas served on Britain's behalf, and in world war two, a quarter of a million. There is hardly any corner of a foreign field of battle where British troops have been engaged these past 176 years which has not also been watered by Gurkha blood. Although eligible for the Victoria Cross only since the first world war, 13 Gurkha soldiers and 13 officers attached to the Gurkhas have won VCs. The most recent award was in 1965 during the Indonesian confrontation. Field Marshal Lord Slim memorably summarised their qualities. He said:
The Almighty created in the Gurkha an ideal rifleman, brave, tough, patient, adaptable, skilled in field craft, intensely proud of his military record and unswerving loyalty. Add to that his honesty in word and deed, his parade perfection, and his unquenchable cheerfulness, then service with Gurkhas is for any soldier an immense satisfaction.
The Gurkhas will be the last to wish to retain their place in the British Army on grounds of sentiment or emotion. Gratitude alone carries few arguments in Whitehall. Although the traditions born of personal example, loyalty and devotion to duty inspire excellence in the profession of arms, the duller dross of the ledger book and the weighing of human worth according to administrative convenience and cost effectiveness will be the order of the day when decisions on regiments' futures are made.
On that mundane balance sheet, the Gurkhas have irrefutable advantages, even for the most drily dispassionate Ministry of Defence official. Three of the five Gurkha infantry battalions are currently in Hong Kong, where they serve unaccompanied tours with an extra rifle


company per battalion over the normal complement for United Kingdom battalions. That is because of their role on anti-illegal immigration duties.
The "Options for Change" regimental amalgamations and disbandments are to be completed by mid-1995. However, the People's Republic of China is not due to assume control of Hong Kong until two years later, on 1 July 1997. It is possible that, as that dreadful date approaches, security in the colony will become very difficult indeed. Other milestones along the long recessional of British power and sovereignty around the globe—partition in India in 1947 and the withdrawal from Aden in 1967—have been marked with bloodshed and strife. It would be wise to retain the full complement of experienced Gurkha troops in place in Hong Kong, with their supporting engineer, signals and transport elements, until the Union Jack goes down.
A Gurkha battalion in Brunei is stationed in the Sultanate under an agreement with the Sultan, which was renewed for five years by Her Majesty's Government in 1988, whereby the sultan bears the full cost of the battalion. The British-run jungle warfare school at Seria provides invaluable training, and it is hard to foresee its perpetuation if the British Gurkha battalion left Brunei.
Finally, the battalion that is stationed in the United Kingdom is part of 5 Airborne brigade, which has just the kind of highly mobile and flexible role that Her Majesty's Government are trying to promote in the British Army in the future. Gurkhas take to parachuting like ducks to water. The battalion that is based in the United Kingdom is also available for unaccompanied tours in the Falklands and Belize, thus reducing the overstretch imposed on United Kingdom-recruited battalions.
In short, Her Majesty's Government should unequivocally confirm the statement made to the House by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr when he was Secretary of State for Defence on 22 May 1989. He said:
Although the Hong Kong commitment will have ceased, we should plan on a future for the Gurkhas after 1997 based on a viable brigade structure. At present, we see this force being a balance of four Gurkha infantry battalions, squadrons of the Queen's Gurkha Engineers, the Queen's Gurkha Signals and the Gurkha Transport Regiment, together with the necessary infrastructure. It would comprise about 4,000 personnel. I would expect the future Gurkha force to have roles that lie within the main stream of the Army's defence commitments, including, as now, a substantial Gurkha presence in the United Kingdom."—[Official Report,22 May 1989; Vol. 153, c. 683.]
It is noteworthy that, in their official response, Cm. 700, to the Select Committee on Defence's admirably scholarly 1989 report on the future of the Gurkhas, Her Majesty's Government endorsed the Committee's recommendations virtually in their entirety, the most noteworthy endorsement being
that any future for the Gurkhas has to be based on a viable Brigade structure. Thus the Government's plans for a future Gurkha force envisage a balance of infantry battalions, squadrons of The Queen's Gurkha Engineers, Queen's Gurkha Signals and Gurkha Transport Regiment. There is also a minimum size of force below which it is difficult to operate practicable manning arrangements; provide a base which is sufficiently broad to support the range of skills and trades required; and obtain a cost-effective return on the investment in the infrastructure needed to support the Gurkhas and the lines of communication in Nepal … The Government agrees with the Defence Committee that the Gurkhas represent good value for money and the Government's plans for a viable future Brigade structure will ensure that they continue to do so.

If Her Majesty's Government's existing publicly announced decisions for the future of the Gurkhas are maintained, let no one say that the Gurkhas will not be bearing their full share of the cuts. Their strength is now just over 8,000; if Her Majesty's Government's existing plans are implemented, their number will be halved within six or seven years.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr said about the infantry in the Army debate on I July,
It is vital that the 36 battalions—or whatever the new number will be—are at full strength. The only way to achieve that is to go for the areas that, year in, year out, have the best recruitment and retention levels. I could defend that position anywhere".—[Official Report, 1 July 1991; Vol. 194, c. 74.]
As it happens, the Gurkhas have the best recruitment and retention record of the whole British Army. In recent years, they have always been fully recruited. Gurkhas serve on average for at least 15 years, whereas British soldiers serve on average for only five years. As the establishment of a Gurkha battalion is 927, against 630 for a British battalion—if it is fully recruited—the cost per man per year is about one third less for a Gurkha battalion.
Furthermore, Gurkha pay and pensions are on Indian army scales under the tripartite agreement. In 1989, the annual cost of Gurkha pensions was about £5·6 million a year for 20,000 pensioners, or £280 per annum per pensioner. The annual cost of British Army pensions was about £500 million a year for about 135,000 pensioners—on average £3,700 per annum per pensioner. The remittances from serving soldiers and Gurkha pensions amount to about two and a half times the official annual aid of Her Majesty's Government to Nepal. The skills, training and personal qualities which British Gurkha soldiers bring to their home villages and beautiful native land is an incomparable asset to one of the poorest countries in the world, a nation which has a treaty of friendship in perpetuity with Britain and whose people merit our loyal adherence to public assurances already given, the most important of which is that the British Brigade of Gurkhas should have a worth while and viable future in the British Army.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) on securing this debate. I know that the future of the Gurkhas is a subject of keen interest at the present time to a number of right hon and hon. Members of this House and, indeed, to many members of the general public. My hon. Friend has previously shown commendable interest in the future of the Gurkhas, most notably as a member of the Select Committee on Defence when he, as he said, took evidence on the future of the Brigade of Gurkhas in 1988–89. He recalled the statement in May 1989 by the then Secretary of State for Defence announcing the proposal to retain 4,000 Gurkhas after 1997. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) did, however, make clear the uncertainties inherent in looking that far ahead, and in particular cited changes in the international scene and the size of the Army as a whole. It is, of course, improvements in east-west relations that have led to the "Options for Change" exercise and the need to review the size and structure of the future Army.
Interest is particularly high at present, as the future of the Gurkhas cannot be divorced from that of the Army as


a whole. It is worth emphasising that the Gurkhas are an integral part of the British Army. Although the majority of the soldiers and some of the officers in the brigade are foreign nationals, they take an oath of allegiance to the Queen and serve alongside their British counterparts.
My hon. Friend will recognise that the period of change and uncertainty represents a particularly difficult time for the Army. As I have said previously in the House, no area of the Army is exempt from consideration under "Options for Change". As my hon. Friend will be aware, consultations within the Army are now taking place and proposals are being put to Ministers. I am aware that there has been a certain amount of speculation in the media and in the House about the future of the Brigade of Gurkhas. I do not intend to use my speech today to add to that speculation. No final decisions have been made about the future of individual units and, as my hon. Friend will know and appreciate, there is little that I can say in advance of the announcement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State hopes to make next week.
With regard to the origins of Gurkha service, the Gurka takes his name from the small principality of Gorkha whose king in the mid-eighteenth century conquered most of what is now known as Nepal. The king and his successors grew so powerful that they overran the whole of the hill country from the Kashmir border to east of Bhutan. Finally, the many deep incursions into the territories of the Honourable East India Company were halted by the declaration of war by the Governor-General in 1814. The war was fought using irregular local forces against the Nepalese until we reached a settlement in 1816 which allowed the Nepalese soldiers to enter British service, and thus the first three regiments of Gurkhas were raised. For more than 100 years the Gurkhas were an integral part of the British Indian Army. At that stage, the Indian Army contained a large number of regiments renowned for their fighting abilities, such as the Sikhs and Pathans, and the Gurkhas were not singled out for any special status until relatively recent times.
The loyalty of the Gurkha troops, which my hon. Friend mentioned, is renowned. During the Indian mutiny of 1857 the Gurkhas remained constant in their allegiance, even when the majority of the Bengal army in which they were serving rebelled. The first Victoria Cross awarded to the Gurkhas was during that campaign, and was awarded in 1858 to a British officer serving in what became the First Gurkha Rifles.
Until the first world war, the Gurkhas served in almost all the campaigns in India and on its frontiers. The first world war brought the first change to that situation, with the contingents of Gurkhas despatched to fight in many theatres of war. The main campaigns in which they fought were in the middle east—Palestine and Mesopotamia—where they won a number of battle honours, but they also won battle honours for Suvla Bay and Gallipoli, and fought on the western front in 1914 and 1915. It is difficult for us to imagine how the appalling conditions in the trenches must have affected hill tribesmen from the remote and underdeveloped mountainous country of Nepal. The battle honours of the 2nd King Edward VII Own Gurkha Rifles include La Bass&e 1914, Festubert 1914–15, Givenchy 1914, and Loos.
The contribution of the Indian Army during those years was enormous. Some 33 battalions of Gurkhas were raised, and 200,000 Nepalese men served in the Indian Army, suffering about 20,000 casualties. That was the first period during which the Gurkhas came to wide notice for their exploits outside India and its environs.
Between the wars, the Gurkhas reverted to 10 regiments, serving in India and fighting many actions on the frontiers. Again, the Gurkhas have to be seen in the context of their role as a part of the armies in India, rather than in the context of the British Army in which they perform so well today.
The second world war again saw a major expansion of the Gurkhas. More than 175,000 men served in more than 40 battalions, and suffered some 24,000 casualties. They fought with distinction in all the main theatres of war, and acquired battle honours including Tobruk, El Alamein and Tunis during the North African campaign and for the Gothic Line and Cassino in Italy.
The Gurkhas will be mainly remembered, however, for their contributions in Burma. Their battle honours for those campaigns include all the actions which are most vividly remembered—Imphal, Mandalay, Rangoon Road and with the Chindits. The Gurkhas earned 12 Victoria Crosses during the second world war.
The partition of India in 1947 led to the break-up of the armies which had been stationed there under the Raj. It was decided to retain four regiments of Gurkhas, who would become part of the British Army, and the six remaining Gurkha regiments would become part of the independent Indian Army; individuals were given the choice of force with which they wished to remain. It was thus that, in 1948, the Gurkhas for the first time became fully part of the British Army.
The four British regiments have remained the same ever since—the 2nd, 6th, 7th and 10th Gurkha Rifles. The 2nd Gurkha Rifles has, since 1902. been known as King Edward VII Own. In 1949 the 10th Gurkha Rifles became the Princess Mary's Own, and in 1959 the 6th and 7th became Queen Elizabeth's Own and the Duke of Edinburgh's Own. In 1977, during the Queen's silver jubilee year, Her Majesty honoured three units of the Brigade of Gurkhas. The Gurkha Engineers and Gurkha Signals received royal titles and Prince Charles was appointed colonel-in-chief of the 2nd King Edward VII Own Gurkha Rifles. The adoption of those titles reflected both the incorporation of the Gurkhas in the British Army and the high regard in which they were rightly held by the British public.
The 1950s saw the Gurkhas take on roles other than their traditional infantry role. They formed the Queen's Gurkha Engineers, the Queen's Gurkha Signals, the Gurkha Army Service Corps—the forerunners of the Gurkha Transport Regiment—and, temporarily, the Gurkha Military Police. There is currently one regiment of each of those specialisms, other than the Military Police, and a total of five battalions of infantry. Thus, the present organisation of the Gurkhas largely reflects the roles established in the 1950s, at which time their numbers reached a post-war peak of some 15,000.
To bring this brief resume of the history of the Gurkhas up to date, I must mention their gallant service in Malaya and Borneo. It was in Borneo that the Gurkhas were awarded the most recent of their 26 Victoria Crosses—to Lance Corporal Rambahadur Limba, later commissioned as a Queen's Gurkha officer. The 7th Duke of Edinburgh's


Own saw service in the Falkland Islands in 1982 and, most recently, the Gurkha Transport Regiment provided drivers for an ambulance unit in the Gulf.
The current deployment of the Gurkhas remains concentrated in the Far East, with three battalions stationed in Hong Kong and one, by agreement with the Sultan, in Brunei. In October, 7 Gurkha Rifles will undertake a six-month roulement tour in Belize, and they have in the past provided elements of the garrison in the Falkland Islands.
What is less often appreciated is the extent to which Gurkhas serve in Britain. One battalion, currently the 7th Duke of Edinburgh's Own Gurkha Rifles, is based at Queen Elizabeth barracks in Church Crookham, Hampshire, and is a part of 5 Airborne Brigade. From time to time, this battalion has been called upon to undertake ceremonial duties at Buckingham Palace and the Tower of London. In addition, the Gurkhas provide demonstration companies for the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst and at Brecon for the School of Infantry. A Queen's Gurkha Signal Squadron forms part of a signal regiment at Blandford in Dorset, and an independent squadron of the Queen's Gurkha Engineers is based at Chatham.
This is a welcome opportunity for me to inform the House that a squadron of the Gurkha Transport Regiment deployed earlier this month to the British contingent of the United Nations force in Cyprus.
It can therefore be seen that Gurkhas now serve in a wide range of roles and in a number of locations, and that highlights the Army's confidence in the abilities of the Gurkhas. But that should not be taken to mean that the differences between Gurkhas and British troops can be glossed over.
From the start, the very system of recruitment sets the Gurkhas apart, with "recruiters" going round the valleys to gather potential recruits for selection. Soldiers of the Brigade of Gurkhas are recruited from areas that cover only a small fraction of the country and lie, in the main, between 5,000 and 8,000 ft above sea level. Recruits into the Army come from four main areas. Those from the west are Gurungs and Magars, and those from the east are Limbus and Rais. The section of the population from which the Brigade of Gurkhas recruits forms only around 6 per cent. of the total population of Nepal—19 million. British officers on posting to the Brigade of Gurkhas learn to speak Nepali—or Gurkhali, as the Army refers to it.
Recruiting for the brigade takes place once a year when ex-servicemen appointed for each area bring a predetermined number of potential recruits to the central points in the hills where ex-Ghurkha officers carry out the final selection.
Competition to be selected is enormous and there are up to 300 applicants for each recruitment vacancy. The 2nd and 6th Gurkha Rifles recruit in the west among the

Magars and Gurungs, the 7th and 10th Gurkha Rifles recruit in the east among the Limbus and Rais, and Engineers, Signals and Transporters come from both sides. Those selected are then sent to the training depot at Sek Kong in Hong Kong for training. That training takes some nine months, three times as long as for a British recruit. During that time, the emphasis is on weapon training, shooting, drill, physical training and the rudimentaries of tactics and fieldcraft. They are also taught arithmetics and map reading, and a key component of their training is the learning of English, a subject that continues throughout the soldier's career. But Nepalese recruits also have to learn about a whole panoply of elements of life in a modern industrialised society.
Almost without exception, those selected to serve in the Gurkhas are committed to making a full career in the Army, where many British infantry soldiers will serve only three or four years. Traditionally, the Gurkha expects to be able to serve for 15 years so as to leave the Army with a pension. Since 1989, we have made it clear that that expectation cannot be guaranteed, although it remains an aspiration. That has not deterred applicants, who continue to flock to join the British Army Gurkha regiments, as they similarly join the Gurkha regiments within the Indian army.
The pattern of service that has prevailed in recent years has meant that a Gurkha would be expected to serve mainly in Hong Kong, but with tours in Brunei and the United Kingdom, and possibly shorter tours elsewhere. That pattern is set to change. We expect to reduce the garrison in Hong Kong over the years until the United Kingdom's final withdrawal in 1997, and current planning assumes that the Hong Kong garrison will reduce by one battalion in 1992. I hope that we shall be in a position to announce the future of that battalion next week.
I should like to close this Adjournment debate by assuring all those who have taken such a keen interest in the future of the Gurkhas that we have taken into account all the concerns that have been expressed to us. Those include the long and devoted history of service by the Gurkhas to the British Crown, the ready availability of recruits and the contribution that serving and retired Gurkhas can make to the economy of Nepal, as well as the more problematic points that I reviewed a few minutes ago.
Decisions about the Gurkhas will be taken within the framework of the Army as a whole. Such decisions are never easy to make, whether they affect British or Gurkha units, and I am sure that when the announcement is made hon. Members will give equally careful consideration to its content as have the Army and the Ministry of Defence in its preparation.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Twelve o'clock.